The Edge Trading System

[ronfalcone]

%75= gambling

75% win rate (profitable is what is stated and is what is in the guarantee) and if that it is it you'd be as well off buying a lottery ticket.
% Win rate in islolation is just gambling and about as much use.

excellent point. I was trying to say the same earlier but didn't express it as well.

Lots of black boxes, systems, etc. boast a high win rate. But when does that rate kick in? Is it a 75% probability of winning on *every* trade, or are you required to trade many times and often in order for the percentage to kick in? For example, there are loads and loads of day trading sites that boast guaranteed results and profits. Only problem is, you;ve got to follow their recommendations of trading multiple stocks, multiple times per day and IF you do all that and squeeze a small profit from each trade, then maybe you'll make some money.

Same thing with Clayburg's Cyclone S&P sofware program (costs about $4k); he says the system is roughly 50% accurate and you can expect significant drawdowns throughout the day, but in order to get 'the edge' you've got to trade throughout the day and complete every day to stay one step ahead of the drawdowns. Not my idea of being a saavy trader. But that's my opinion.

Not to mention, The Edge had 9 losers on Monday; that would seem to show some flaws in the "75%" argument would it not? Perhaps a tweak here or there would improve results?

BTW, I finally received an e-mail from Ms. Crowe who has informed me that a new website with more course content descriptions will appear next week.

 

[Babu]

You are reading the results from Monday wrong. There were:

9 trades
1 scratch
2 winners
6 losers

still only 13 ticks lost in the day because there were many reversals that kept the losers small

 

[chump]

Bear in mind I am not rubbishing this system ! I am making the point that a system seller should be prepared to give a comprehensive performance breakdown . Anything less than that leaves the buyer working with insufficient information on which to make an informed buying decision. Where such information is not forthcoming then a buyer may rightly feel that buying such a system is in fact nothing more than a gamble.

 

[DaveJB]

The system isn't 'lifted', it's a very simple combination of fairly basic TA techniques - the periods used in the indicators aren't standard, but as anyone who has played with oscillator periods etc will know the periods chosen aren't usually that critical... use one set of numbers you get a bunch of signals, change the numbers get a different set, over time the reliability of both won't normally be that different.
You can't really 'lift' stuff that's already in the public domain, as all of this stuff is - that doesn't mean the system is without merit, as there's a great deal of stufdf in the public domain, much of it complete garbage!
JSP326 - I'm actually checking this out now , being a bit of a geek I look at several systems a year in the hope of gaining a tiny bit of info from each - I don't believe in magic bullets, if I ever find one I'll be pleasantly surprised, if you'd like to PM me at some point I'd be happy to compare notes... I'm watching it on $INDU on 1 minute timeframe, with further periods on view to compare.

 

[DaveJB]

No,
I do have to disagree there - it's not a question of people being unwilling to call it plagiarism, virtually any system you want to look at is equally guilty by your definition - Omnitrader performs loads of scans looking for common TA setups, is that plagiarism? Metastock? Stockcharts? Updata?

The lady has taken a divergence system, put a few different numbers into the indicators used (although most of them are bog standard) and said 'a bu setup is this, a short is that'. That's all MOST (if not all) system types do, they tell you how to set your screens up, then outline (with varying degrees of lucidity) how to spot entry and exit. Now if that makes you money, using here particular combination of bits, then no quibble. It is entirely possible that she spent 6 years trying out different settings and combinations of indicator etc before getting anywhere, whether that system then makes you money is another matter. Anyone who really works at developing systems will quite likely spend years at it - 'never getting there' is a distinct possibility, if not a likelihood.

Plagiarism is a claim I'd support if you pointed to this combination of settings etc being described elsewhere first, no beef here either - show me the proof and I'll happily agree with you, I'm already predisposed to thinking system sellers are probably talking mince, so you won't have to persuade me very hard <g> I do think you ought to prove it though - you can hardly claim she's not proving anything (after all, her site carries the daily trade history, and exiting users can confirm this) whilst you haven't yet posted the link to where the info is meant to have been lifted from.

This is NOT to say that I think the system is going to prove itself a goldmine, I've already got a few doubts that it's all quite as obvious as the blurb suggests, but then I've a while to go to give it a fair run so I'll suspend judgement on that for now.

A general warning to take system seller claims with a large dose of salt is, however, entirely justified as a general health warning.
Dave

 

[jsp326]

Wally,
I sent you an email but haven't received anything yet. I have purchased the Edge course as well.

For anyone who did receive the materials, I'm curious what you received. Wally, don't take this personally, but why should we believe your word over Bette's...or vice versa, unless there's proof? Is there evidence (Internet Archives?) that it was free at one time? If so, why did the person remove it from the web (unless it was Bette or someone associated with her)? How do we know your materials aren't just the work of a disgruntled Edge purchaser...or even another vendor?

Again, this isn't personal and I'm not accusing you of this. But this is just a classic "he said, she said" unless you provide some evidence besides an email with a similar strategy.

 

[wally_]

Wally,
I sent you an email but haven't received anything yet. I have purchased the Edge course as well.

For anyone who did receive the materials, I'm curious what you received. Wally, don't take this personally, but why should we believe your word over Bette's...or vice versa, unless there's proof? Is there evidence (Internet Archives?) that it was free at one time? If so, why did the person remove it from the web (unless it was Bette or someone associated with her)? How do we know your materials aren't just the work of a disgruntled Edge purchaser...or even another vendor?

Again, this isn't personal and I'm not accusing you of this. But this is just a classic "he said, she said" unless you provide some evidence besides an email with a similar strategy.

I did send it over the weekend (last Sunday), but I see from your post and repeated emails to me that many did not get it, perhaps because it was sent as a mailing list and so it might have ended up in your bulk folder. I will be sending this stuff again this weekend to each of you individually and I hope that everyone who asked for it gets it this time.

I found this stuff in 2003-2004, and yes you can still find some traces of it on the Internet and I mentioned in my email how to do this. Well, you need to realize, however, that a lot of the good stuff does not survive. For instance, the Blackjacktrader method is based on some free stuff that you could find in the public domain in 2002 as I did, but the site that hosted that information does not exist anymore. This is how some people may claim they invented something. In fact, they at best re-invented it and they sell it as if it were something original while many people know about it and can share it for free.

I have no problem with original work and I do believe in protecting it. But if something was already made public, then it is not original anymore. It's as simple as that... Yes, you can make money selling it to newbies, which is what some do. You want to pay for it? Be my guest, that's your money, so what do I care... I believe in paying for original work and in sharing the work that was already shared by others. So you can get it from me for free, but you will not get free from me the stuff I think is original, whether it's mine or somebody else's. In fact, I will not even reveal the exact values of the Edge parameters, to protect their 'originality', but as Rob said the difference is very minor indeed.

Take care and stay tuned. I hope this weekend all who asked for it, will get it.

 

[DaveJB]

Hmm,
well - as I count them, there are 6 parameters given for Stoch.... three for MACD.... that makes 9, doesn't it? How do you get 6 parameters?

It would perhaps be instructive if somebody who believes they have the system for free from elsewhere would actually put it somewhere those who have the real system could get at - that way everyone could be satisifed fairly simply on the score of whether this was developed by the seller or merely lifted by them. Not trying to argue for the sake of it, I'd genuinely be interested to see evidence of lifting as I find the snake oil salesman aspect of trading repugnant - but there's rather more to a 'system' than simply a set of indicator parameters, and 'the Edge' involves a combination of signals - one of which is 'what the price is doing'....

As an example, I might say 'buy on an MA20 cross up through the MA50', I would have different signals if I said to do this when the RSI is above 50 and climbing to what I'd get if I said to do this when RSI is 50 and dropping'.

The Edge is a combination of signals, which for all I know were indeed developed by the seller. I do know what the signals and method entail, show me a description of something pretty much the same that visibly predates 'the edge' and I'll willingly concede the point - I've no axe to grind. If this prior system exists, and it's free, there's no reason why it can't be displayed for all to see surely? People paying for 'the edge' are somewhat restricted in their ability to chuck the details up on their websites with a brief note saying 'anybody recognise this?' but that isn't a restriction that applies to any free method.

Dave

 

[DaveJB]

Hi Wally,
yes, stuff does disappear over time, sometimes to reappear under new management with a price ticker attached. If that's what happened with 'edge' and the only way to get it is by paying, then that's presumably what one will have to do. I would heartily concur that to claim to have invented it, if it's really a lift of someone else's prior work, is reprehensible.
If I knew something had been in the public domain, and somebody was now claiming ownership, I'd be inclined to simply publish what I had.

 

[SOCRATES]

No,
I do have to disagree there - it's not a question of people being unwilling to call it plagiarism, virtually any system you want to look at is equally guilty by your definition - Omnitrader performs loads of scans looking for common TA setups, is that plagiarism? Metastock? Stockcharts? Updata?

The lady has taken a divergence system, put a few different numbers into the indicators used (although most of them are bog standard) and said 'a bu setup is this, a short is that'. That's all MOST (if not all) system types do, they tell you how to set your screens up, then outline (with varying degrees of lucidity) how to spot entry and exit. Now if that makes you money, using here particular combination of bits, then no quibble. It is entirely possible that she spent 6 years trying out different settings and combinations of indicator etc before getting anywhere, whether that system then makes you money is another matter. Anyone who really works at developing systems will quite likely spend years at it - 'never getting there' is a distinct possibility, if not a likelihood.

Plagiarism is a claim I'd support if you pointed to this combination of settings etc being described elsewhere first, no beef here either - show me the proof and I'll happily agree with you, I'm already predisposed to thinking system sellers are probably talking mince, so you won't have to persuade me very hard <g> I do think you ought to prove it though - you can hardly claim she's not proving anything (after all, her site carries the daily trade history, and exiting users can confirm this) whilst you haven't yet posted the link to where the info is meant to have been lifted from.

This is NOT to say that I think the system is going to prove itself a goldmine, I've already got a few doubts that it's all quite as obvious as the blurb suggests, but then I've a while to go to give it a fair run so I'll suspend judgement on that for now.

A general warning to take system seller claims with a large dose of salt is, however, entirely justified as a general health warning.
Dave

And I quite agree with you . What you omit to point out is that if endless tinkering is required over a long period of time it may mean that the concept is flawed in the first instance, otherwise it would just roar away and function reliably whatever. Generally speaking the best ones are not released so very few get to know about them, we only tend to hear about the ones that are developed partly as a result of necessary endless tinkering and partly because they are openly available on a commercial basis anyway.

 

[jsp326]

This is what I was implying. What Wally is saying may be true, but I don't know why the "Pre-Edge" creator and website would suddenly dissapear. If anything, you think they would let everyone know what happened, similar to what happened with the Turtles. (Curtis Faith, an original Turtle, put the rules for free on his site when he saw others trying to sell the rules and touting them as a Holy Grail.)

Hi Wally,
If I knew something had been in the public domain, and somebody was now claiming ownership, I'd be inclined to simply publish what I had.

 

[rob_klo]

Hmm,
well - as I count them, there are 6 parameters given for Stoch.... three for MACD.... that makes 9, doesn't it? How do you get 6 parameters?


Dave

Look, there are 3 basic parameters in stochastics, every charting package contains them. There is one more in some charting packages, say Tradestation, called smoothing factor or soemthing like that, but it does not exist in most others. The other two parameters (lines) are absolutely irrelevant to the Edge Method and the smoothing factor is set to 1 by default in the packages that do not contain it. Now, the lines can be set at 20,80 or 30,70, or whatever, they have nothing to do with the stochastics, they are external to it.

Frankly, if you spent as much time on educating yourself as you spend on arguing here, you would not be so easily swayed by various hypsters with their 'last system to buy' and you would know all about stochastics that is needed too.

Killing the messenger as some of you are trying to do here is not going to change the fact that someone else has taken advantage of you... If you can't face it, that's not Wally's fault...

 

[SOCRATES]

Now this is your thirteenth post and it appears already you are getting into a temper, and so on. Will you please calm down and explain why it is you consider these stochastics to be so important, what is so special about them then, if anything, that causes you to get all steamed up ? I cannot see the significance in these gadgets you are so fierce about. Explain please.

 

[DaveJB]

Hi Rob,
I don't actually use this system - as I posted before I have an interest in these attempts to automate trading, primarily because I'm a programmer and have spent a good while working on what I'd consider 'expert systems'.... I'm coming from the direction of somebody who tends to think that automated setup identification can speed the analysis process by reducing the amount you have to look at - many people will set an alert to let them know when a price level is reached, I see "automated setup spotting" as an extension of this, and am prepared to work at it. My aim is not to have a magic bullet, it's to have a program running that tells me 'you might like to look at this' and, perhaps, puts up some notes I might have entered when seeing something similar before.

I queried your post as you mentioned the two main indicators used, and said '6 parameters' - as I said, she lists 9 for those two, so I asked (I thought reasonably politely) why you made it 6. I am aware that she uses Tradestation parameters to specify settings, and that a number of lines aren't used - she also lists several other indicators, an MA, and that the indicators are to be viewed in conjunction with certain action on the price chart.

I'm not defending the lady, nor have I said anything about the system working... in fact if you'd read what I've posted you'll find I'm a bit of a skeptic because if it does work it'll be the first I've ever seen that did. Which would bother me had I bought it hoping to make a pot of money, but I didn't.

I spend a lot of time on educating myself , which is why I don't use canned systems... that doesn't mean you can't learn from what others do.

 

[DaveJB]

Soc,
yes - a good many promising ideas have bitten the dust over the years, I tend to consider the need to 'tweak' as the death knell for any such invention although there are so many variables involved that you have to be careful not to shoot the latest monster too soon, it might work fine for one particular market, so just dust it off when applicable.

In the end the mind is better at pattern finding, I just happen to think it's possible to narrow the area you are searching in, giving your mind a 'target rich environment' seems a good idea to me. The computer is an idiot, ideally suited to repetitive jobs that would bore me rigid - so I let it do that stuff for me.

Thanks for the defence, the stochastics is one of the indicators used in the system this thread is centred on - it's importance is, I would say, solely related to that.... it's used in a slightly non-standard way, with non-standard parameters, and as a result it's one way to determine who here is in which group, those who:
A) Know the system and think it's great
B) Know the system, think it's no better than all the rest
C) Don't know the system but think it's rubbish anyway
D) Don't know the system but secretly want a copy
E) Don't know the system, don't care two hoots either

I lean towards B, personally, but accept I have a natural bias against these things as I've seen very very clever programs make very very stupid calls, including some I wrote. You'd be in group E at a guess <g>

We've rather stopped discussing the system itself and how it's doing, and started arguing about whether it's a rip off of some earlier work or not - which is interesting, as a footnote, but rather incidental to whether it's possible to make money or not. As fiddling with parameters tends to be a way to turn losing ideas into good looking ones....
I was attempting to decide if some posters were in group B or C, as I'd be more inclined to accept what those in B were saying.

And for anyone who's still bothered - I've been watching the DJIA for a few hours off and on, over 10 days or so, primarily trying to see if the signals are actually 'spottable' at the time. A not uncommon 'feature' of this sort of thing is to find that the various bumps aren't obviously signals until some time after they actually complete - signals tend, with many systems, to be far less ambiguous in hindsight than at the time they actually appear. Now this might just be lack of practise, and my idea of 'late' is only a couple of bars after the top/bottom most of the time, but it'd be nice to know if anyone else is watching the Dow and - if so - are you finding it all going smoothly and to plan, with the expected percentage of winners and most trades going into profit from the off?

Dave

 

[SOCRATES]

Soc,
yes - a good many promising ideas have bitten the dust over the years, I tend to consider the need to 'tweak' as the death knell for any such invention although there are so many variables involved that you have to be careful not to shoot the latest monster too soon, it might work fine for one particular market, so just dust it off when applicable.

In the end the mind is better at pattern finding, I just happen to think it's possible to narrow the area you are searching in, giving your mind a 'target rich environment' seems a good idea to me. The computer is an idiot, ideally suited to repetitive jobs that would bore me rigid - so I let it do that stuff for me.

Thanks for the defence, the stochastics is one of the indicators used in the system this thread is centred on - it's importance is, I would say, solely related to that.... it's used in a slightly non-standard way, with non-standard parameters, and as a result it's one way to determine who here is in which group, those who:
A) Know the system and think it's great
B) Know the system, think it's no better than all the rest
C) Don't know the system but think it's rubbish anyway
D) Don't know the system but secretly want a copy
E) Don't know the system, don't care two hoots either

I lean towards B, personally, but accept I have a natural bias against these things as I've seen very very clever programs make very very stupid calls, including some I wrote. You'd be in group E at a guess <g>

We've rather stopped discussing the system itself and how it's doing, and started arguing about whether it's a rip off of some earlier work or not - which is interesting, as a footnote, but rather incidental to whether it's possible to make money or not. As fiddling with parameters tends to be a way to turn losing ideas into good looking ones....
I was attempting to decide if some posters were in group B or C, as I'd be more inclined to accept what those in B were saying.

And for anyone who's still bothered - I've been watching the DJIA for a few hours off and on, over 10 days or so, primarily trying to see if the signals are actually 'spottable' at the time. A not uncommon 'feature' of this sort of thing is to find that the various bumps aren't obviously signals until some time after they actually complete - signals tend, with many systems, to be far less ambiguous in hindsight than at the time they actually appear. Now this might just be lack of practise, and my idea of 'late' is only a couple of bars after the top/bottom most of the time, but it'd be nice to know if anyone else is watching the Dow and - if so - are you finding it all going smoothly and to plan, with the expected percentage of winners and most trades going into profit from the off?

Dave

The thing with indicators is that they look plausible enough to entrap people to persist in using them. The bother for the so entrapped is that they all look perfect in hindsight. This is of academic interest but frustratingly for them, not of practical value, because for these gizmos to be operative data is required to make them confirmatory.

The program has to accept the data and then slot it into pre concieved rule sets. This may be instantaneous but then it requires verification of conformity to the pre concieved rule sets.

The result is that all of these things end up lagging (and not leading in a proactive sense) and therefore not altogether useless but somewhat blunt. This is one reason that I am not in favour of them. There are other reasons too but I am not going to ventilate them here otherwise we are likely to start a war of bicker and argue without end.

The fact of the matter is that in the end analysis, none of these artificial aids are necessary or indeed desireable. I say this because they tend to have the effect to corrupt the observer into dependency, which is a form of intellectual laziness. This is something no one can afford to suffer from, specially in fast moving and very liquid markets.

I have yet to see any of these so called systems delivering accuracy of between 19 out of 20 results correct, banding 29 out of 30 correct or higher, as it is patently obvious they cannot outperform a properly trained Mark 1 Eyeball planted in the head of a skilled, experienced, knowledgeable and responsive trader.

You are correct in saying I am in category E. It is not that I do not care two hoots, nor that I am totally indiferrent, it is just that artificial intelligence cannot, at least in the current state of development, replace natural input, assimilation, evaluation and response. as not everyone is the same, the level of personal expertise varies from person to person. Thios makes the very topic of experise itself a bone of contention for many to chew endlessly, often not gracefully or in pleasant mode.

Many of these ideas are not entirely wrong, they provide useful yardsticks when examining events with the benefit of hindsight, which for trading purposes at the leading edge of the keenest edge are useless and in many cases dangerous, but it seems there are a plethora of hidden vested interests keen in persistently promoting these mirages.

I do not subscribe to any of them, as you know.

 

[DaveJB]

Hi,
I wouldn't argue with you, I think it's possible to use a program to help you identify when it might pay to invest your time to good effect... you'd then have to apply your eyeball and brain to decide what to do IF you think an opportunity has been identified.

Lagging is an issue - some of these systems look to give nice crisp calls, whereas in reality, in real time, it can take several bars for the direction change or whatever to become apparent. Looking back the seller points to stonkingly obvious entries and exits.... there's a practicality aspect to these things that can vary a great deal, which I suspect can upset some buyers. I'm not pointing at 'the edge' here, just something those contemplating a buy of any system should be aware of - if you don't seem to spot the signals when YOU do it, sometimes there's a good reason!

Still, I certainly wish those using any system good luck - the fact that I haven't as yet seen anything that appears to be a 'winning' system doesn't mean that somebody else isn't enjoying just that. I can't ski either but I'm quite happy others can.

Whilst typing #59 some sort of popup appeared last night - if somebody here was trying to ask me to chat or something then sorry, typing on one screen actioned the 'clear off' button that popped up on the other screen, apologies if somebody thought I'd done it on purpose!

 

[SOCRATES]

Hi,
I wouldn't argue with you, I think it's possible to use a program to help you identify when it might pay to invest your time to good effect... you'd then have to apply your eyeball and brain to decide what to do IF you think an opportunity has been identified.

Lagging is an issue - some of these systems look to give nice crisp calls, whereas in reality, in real time, it can take several bars for the direction change or whatever to become apparent. Looking back the seller points to stonkingly obvious entries and exits.... there's a practicality aspect to these things that can vary a great deal, which I suspect can upset some buyers. I'm not pointing at 'the edge' here, just something those contemplating a buy of any system should be aware of - if you don't seem to spot the signals when YOU do it, sometimes there's a good reason!

Still, I certainly wish those using any system good luck - the fact that I haven't as yet seen anything that appears to be a 'winning' system doesn't mean that somebody else isn't enjoying just that. I can't ski either but I'm quite happy others can.

Whilst typing #59 some sort of popup appeared last night - if somebody here was trying to ask me to chat or something then sorry, typing on one screen actioned the 'clear off' button that popped up on the other screen, apologies if somebody thought I'd done it on purpose!

Hello Dave,

In your paragraphs one and two above you have put a spotlight on a problem so subliminal that many people are either unaware of it, or, if they are, choose to skate over it in the hope it will go away.

Vendors take advantage of this inherent weakness in the common viewpoint of users in general, by deflecting their attention away from the problem and towards what they are led to percieve on both sides of the equation to be, or, in effect what appears like a mirage to be a plausible solution and that for a time is able to satisfy both parties. Not so. As a consequence of ignoring this gap nearly all of them get fried, sooner or later.

It is such a small gap and so well camouflaged that only the most alert and self critical are able to spot it. I am nearly certain you have. This particular problem gets highlighted in very fast, very liquid markets with the ever present risk of immediate and unexpected volatility. The market in forex is one very good example, that is why I mention it here.

Kind Regards.

 

[simplesimon69]

For those of you who want a closer look at divergence (and hidden divergence) have a look at this website which is freely available

http://www.trading-naked.com/Divergence.htm

 

[DaveJB]

Cheers SS69,
thanks for the link.
Dave