Back to www.cobrasmarketview.com |
Thank you, finally someone took it seriously.jarbo456 wrote:As for everything besides two weeks ago (which was a bit of a doozy):
I was stopped out of NCT and DK, and currently hold ACM, STZ, DAL, GEO, ISIS, KBH, and S.
Overall it looks like this:
DK - (3.85%)
NCT - (2.63%)
ACM - +3.8%
STZ - +4.76
DAL - +3.33%
GEO - +1.08%
ISIS - +9.2% on half closed out, and floating +5.21% on half
KBH - +6.6% on half closed out, and floating +5.54% on half
S - +1.34%
All of these are floating P&L numbers except for the first two which were stop losses.
gappy wrote:Thanks for your input Denali92. It's ok, better safe than sorry! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFMaVETNiJQDenali92 wrote:Posted extensive comments on opex top and FOMC bottom in the comments section in Market Outlook and Intraday comments.
http://www.cobrasmarketview.com/2013/03 ... ay-update/
Bottom line:
For now, I am afraid that we will not know whether we have the opex top or the FOMC bottom until we break 1564 or 1538 on the SPX.
Sorry about that,
-D
Well, my view of DAX is more negative than Cobra's...Cobra wrote:I still cannot say DAX chart looks bad yet. Revisit the blue line below is just a common pattern, bears need do more.
I agree you could write an optimization program overlap that could "kick out" false breakouts via some matrix of signals (maybe unconfirmed bullish crossovers, volume, strength of the breakout, etc. etc.). I like that idea, and maybe we can knock around some ideas over the coming weeks to figure that out.stlwater wrote:"There's nothing subjective to this"
There "should" be nothing subjective to this. However, my point yesterday was, that I agreed that a tighter stop after a break-out looks valid and I think I back-test might agree (which I will program at some point into my BT software). I think that was your point, and I agreed. Cobra introduced subjectivity into the discussion when he mentioned why he might bail out of what "appeared to be" a false breakout
This is why I asked why you felt that it should have been held. Your response is great, because the system is what it is. You play the odds. I was wondering if you were using some other measure to determine why you "should" stay in.
I've never played base/breakouts before until I saw cobra posting them. I did a few scans and found some of my own as well. My mistake was not running a back-test in order to have confidence in the system. I played by the rules, and I'm down in FSL only. STZ turned out to be a great trade. I understand the win/loss ratio, thanks.
Cobra, do you have the avg win/loss ratio, profit factor, sharpe ratio, expectancy or coefficient for this system?Cobra wrote:Thank you, finally someone took it seriously.jarbo456 wrote:As for everything besides two weeks ago (which was a bit of a doozy):
I was stopped out of NCT and DK, and currently hold ACM, STZ, DAL, GEO, ISIS, KBH, and S.
Overall it looks like this:
DK - (3.85%)
NCT - (2.63%)
ACM - +3.8%
STZ - +4.76
DAL - +3.33%
GEO - +1.08%
ISIS - +9.2% on half closed out, and floating +5.21% on half
KBH - +6.6% on half closed out, and floating +5.54% on half
S - +1.34%
All of these are floating P&L numbers except for the first two which were stop losses.
That would be nice, it would be more difficult to program that kind of test (or maybe not) but I was thinking of merely testing an ATR or price relative based stop and seeing how the variables and profit factor changes. It could be that cobra's stop placement is exactly right from a purely technical standpoint.jarbo456 wrote:I agree you could write an optimization program overlap that could "kick out" false breakouts via some matrix of signals (maybe unconfirmed bullish crossovers, volume, strength of the breakout, etc. etc.). I like that idea, and maybe we can knock around some ideas over the coming weeks to figure that out.stlwater wrote:"There's nothing subjective to this"
There "should" be nothing subjective to this. However, my point yesterday was, that I agreed that a tighter stop after a break-out looks valid and I think I back-test might agree (which I will program at some point into my BT software). I think that was your point, and I agreed. Cobra introduced subjectivity into the discussion when he mentioned why he might bail out of what "appeared to be" a false breakout
This is why I asked why you felt that it should have been held. Your response is great, because the system is what it is. You play the odds. I was wondering if you were using some other measure to determine why you "should" stay in.
I've never played base/breakouts before until I saw cobra posting them. I did a few scans and found some of my own as well. My mistake was not running a back-test in order to have confidence in the system. I played by the rules, and I'm down in FSL only. STZ turned out to be a great trade. I understand the win/loss ratio, thanks.
When I say "knock out" I mean the system takes the trade very simply on price alone - just as it does now. But the optimization program then runs once the trade has been entered to determine if it should be "kept" or sold. Even if it's determined that it should be sold (weak breakout, high probability of being a false breakout, or whatever etc. etc.), most times, it should still be a small profit.
I'm currently using an ATR based stop loss which makes it tighter than the purely TA correct stop below the low point of the range. Once I have a few more weeks of data, I'll do the sharpe and a couple other performance metrics.stlwater wrote:That would be nice, it would be more difficult to program that kind of test (or maybe not) but I was thinking of merely testing an ATR or price relative based stop and seeing how the variables and profit factor changes. It could be that cobra's stop placement is exactly right from a purely technical standpoint.jarbo456 wrote:I agree you could write an optimization program overlap that could "kick out" false breakouts via some matrix of signals (maybe unconfirmed bullish crossovers, volume, strength of the breakout, etc. etc.). I like that idea, and maybe we can knock around some ideas over the coming weeks to figure that out.stlwater wrote:"There's nothing subjective to this"
There "should" be nothing subjective to this. However, my point yesterday was, that I agreed that a tighter stop after a break-out looks valid and I think I back-test might agree (which I will program at some point into my BT software). I think that was your point, and I agreed. Cobra introduced subjectivity into the discussion when he mentioned why he might bail out of what "appeared to be" a false breakout
This is why I asked why you felt that it should have been held. Your response is great, because the system is what it is. You play the odds. I was wondering if you were using some other measure to determine why you "should" stay in.
I've never played base/breakouts before until I saw cobra posting them. I did a few scans and found some of my own as well. My mistake was not running a back-test in order to have confidence in the system. I played by the rules, and I'm down in FSL only. STZ turned out to be a great trade. I understand the win/loss ratio, thanks.
When I say "knock out" I mean the system takes the trade very simply on price alone - just as it does now. But the optimization program then runs once the trade has been entered to determine if it should be "kept" or sold. Even if it's determined that it should be sold (weak breakout, high probability of being a false breakout, or whatever etc. etc.), most times, it should still be a small profit.
TG u got any turn dates for April 1?TraderGirl wrote:Potential wave count on UUP..??
KeiZai, what's your best silver guess next 30 hours. I am get'n real close to capitulation here.KeiZai wrote:XIV triangle or not
I have a reversal and big range day on the 29th for PM's....Al_Dente wrote:TG u got any turn dates for April 1?TraderGirl wrote:Potential wave count on UUP..??
This will be chaos for folks not paying attention (EVERYONE on this board has this down cold, thanks to victorm):
SPLITS APRIL 1
1-for-6 reverse split ERY
1-for-5 reverse split YANG and EDZ, and NUGT for shareholders of record after the close of the markets on Monday, April 1.
1-for-4 reverse split FAZ and TZA
3-for-1 forward split FAS, and EDC and SPXL for shareholders of record after the close of the markets on Monday, April 1.
2-for-1 forward split DRN and LBJ and TYD and TNA for shareholders of record after the close of the markets on Monday, April 1.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/direxion- ... 00760.html