This is really a very simple subject ... Those that can Trade ...
Those that can't sell a variety of systems, news letters, market sites etc etc. If you think about it why would anyone sell a system that had any probability of success for $300 ? What's a winning systems really worth ? ... Well if one had $1 mm and a system that could make 20% per year on relatively small draw downs even in enviornments like the last year or so then it's worth a hell of a lot more than $300, isn't it ? The reality is good systems aren't sold, nor are they advertised nor for the most part are they even discussed openly. --- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <brian_z...@...> wrote: > > Yes, this is a very real problem in trading. > > The 'industry' already has nearly 100 years of history and thousands > of 'traders, many of whom have been armed with computers for a least > a decade, and are highly skilled analysts to boot, have been pouring > over the same data. > > As I said before, our field of endeavour is actually very small, if > we confine our discussion to stock trading (exotic instruments and IT > advances have added some refinements but the basics remain the same). > > To emphasise the point .... the trading universe is a very small > pool, and a relatively unimportant one at that .... IMO many of us > take it, and our role as traders, far too seriously. > > Trading ideas and specific expressions of those ideas have filtered > out from books, private conversations and trading material (free or > sold) onto the internet where we all absorb this info without knowing > where it originated. > > Generally I find it a bit rich when a new crop comes along, > reassembles the info a little and claims it as original/copyright > material. > > I also find it a bit rich when they become uncomfortable about the > fact that after they have sold their 'secret' it leaks out onto the > net and then they want to claim privilige and scare off the readers. > > Anyone who wants to keep a secret should start with keeping it > themselves. > > > > This is a very real issue. > > To provide an example. > > 4-5 years ago I purchase a 'trading system' from a USA mentor for > approx USD$300-400. > > The gentleman had an impressive an upstanding resume. > > The site was well presented and credible and the support was > excellent. > > The 'system' claimed a performance record of around ProfitFactor = 2 > and to be universal i.e. it worked in any timeframe and any market. > > I signed a confidentiallity clause and purchased the 'system'. > > At their website they maintained a trading log for the system with a > 12 month history (on the SPY I think). > > At the time I was using MetaStock ..... within a week or two I had > backtested the system in MS and found I couldn't see anyway to get > the system to perform as they claimed it did. > > Furthermore, when I tallied the trades recorded in their own log, it > didn't add up to PF 2 either ....more like 1.4. which I now > understand to be a typical statistical abherration of break even > systems. > > I duly sent them a friendly and helpful email, assuming I was > misunderstanding something. > > After a few days of silence the trading log came down from the site > and a new system hit the headlines about two weeks later. > > On top of that, part of the system involved manual calculation and > entry of some 'envelope' settings. > > I played around with the system in MS and luckily came across a way > to automate, via simple code, the envelopes. > > I was going to 'give' the code to the guy but when I emailed him > about it to open the discussion there was another silence followed by > a reply email congratulating me on my fine effort and claiming > that "they already had an automated algorithm for the envelopes, in > beta and that it would soon be released". > > I spent many hours pouring over that 'system' and I still don't > believe it is a particularly profitable system. > > Furthermore it is not original but only a rehash of scores of other > systems based on a few core trading principles. > > > The moral of the story: > > - I purchased a system and signed a 'copyright' agreement when I was > somewhat naive from a trading point of view > - the ethics of the situation don't compel me to honour the agreement > - legally I am obliged (just in case ... murky waters as Bill says) > - I would like to post the system on this site but I might am > restricted > > In fact, on account of the agreement, the trading 'mentor' owns a > hackneyed, recycled system and has it locked up for years. > > He who publishes first and longest wins! > > IMO this is not a good outcome for the trading community. > > brian_z > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Michel Guibert <michelg14@> > wrote: > > > > > > If I follow all the copyright , I can't do anything , everybody has > done everything before me. > > Many formulas were published in many books or review and you think > there is copyright on them ??? > > Personnaly when they are published in a review I consider them in > the public domain. > > > > MG > > > > > > > > To: amibroker@: ohneclue@: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:05:28 - > 0800Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: COPYRIGHT > > > > > > > > > > > > Whenever you write something, you own the copyright to it such -- > even these posts are the IP of the individual poster and they own the > copyright to the contents. Yahoo does not own it, the group owner > does not own it and in the Yahoo TOS, this is so stated. > > > > In another group that suffers from overt estrogen overloaded, 1 > person wrote a guide, lifted whole posts of other members and put > them in her guide (without credit or permission) that she sold and > was called on it. The person who was charging for the information > had to refund money and revise her guide to be strictly and > exclusively her own words. That is an example of copyright violation. > > > > I use and quote George C Lane and his application of the stochastic > formula all the time and it is NOT a violation of copyright because > the settings are mine that I have played around with, I give credit > where I have learned something from someone else such as David > Elliott about stochastics settings, etc., and don't lift entire > paragraphs or words in the same series as their works. These are not > copyright violations. These come under the fair and free use concept. > > > > If I am discussing something from a trading book or manual that is > copyrighted and put it into my own words even though it is not my > original idea, that is not a violation of copyright. > > > > If I write a book or prepare a PP presentation and pass the work > off as my own when it is based on someone else's work and the charts > are THEIRS I lifted entirely, word for word or exactly the same > indicator settings, other than my own stochastic settings I've > developed, and sell it, that is a violation of copyright. > > > > The two elements are: passing stuff off as your own when you > copied it from someone else and selling it as your own idea. > > > > Judith > > > > > > > > From: Barry Scarborough <razzbarry@>To: amibroker@: Friday, > December 19, 2008 10:32:28 PMSubject: [amibroker] Re: COPYRIGHT > > > > No. It appears there is a lot of confusion on copyright laws. A > good discussion is at http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Copyrights. OF > course this isn't official but it is an easier read than the law > books. People like Wilder published his works so others could benefit > from his discoveries. What the copyright laws do is prevent someone > from copying his work and selling it. But the intellectual property > he disclosed is for our use. Why else would he publish it?Barry--- In > amibro...@yahoogrou ps.com, "binjobingo" <binjobingo@ ...> wrote:>> > Does referring to Wilder's Relative strength Indicator,or Lane's> > Stochastics, or Chande's Vidya & so on lead to copyright violation? > > > Say one reads An Author's book & am not able to write AFL for the> > Indicators & so ask the forum members to write it for me Is it> > copyright violation?> > If one give a link to the Website say some > other website which> explains the parameters & use of the > said "indicator" but the website> may not be owned by the Author > himself does it lead to copyright> violation ?> > If it is so I think > all the forums would close down & nobody would> discuss their trading > strategy since trading strategies use some> Indicator by some author.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Drag n' dropGet easy photo sharing with Windows Live Photos. > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/photos.aspx > > >
