TNA Trading Challenge

[Intrepid_Timer]

Just can't stop hating can you?

Yes, I'm a fool then.

I mentioned my profile in case anyone wants to verify that your comment was simply a hateristic guess.

I'm here for the same reasons others are here. Did you ask others why are they here? But I'm not here to convince others they should pay me to tell them how to trade their accounts.

Now we know that you are just jealous. Develop a good track record and perhaps one day you can be like Mike...................

 

[userque]

Now we know that you are just jealous. Develop a good track record and perhaps one day you can be like Mike...................

That guess is also incorrect.

I've posted in the past that if I were to use a premium service, it would be the one with the best return, which was you. A post you "liked."

You see, I'm not a hater.

I intend to develop a good track record, but not to be like anyone.

But, I would love to be like Jesus, for the record. I know I've got a long way to go in that regard.

 

[burrocrat]

let me be frank with you, i'm only here for the spelling and grammar, not the math.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

The formula DOES extrapolate.

That was my point. I capitalized those words mainly because one of my earlier posts I was talking about "invalidating" the mathematics... which that was what I was talking about. I just question the validity of using that formula when it is extrapolating (when # of days is < 1 year) for any type of performance metric, and I've never seen it used in this range before (although I can't say I've looked for it). I believe the rule of thumb is to not try to extrapolate beyond 50% of the period for which you have data; so in this case it would only be realistic to estimate out to day 30.

The list was of recent Intrepid customers. I suspected you were here on his behalf.

I'm not sure why... IT has not posted anything about you that I am aware of. Well... of course until you admitted to keeping a list of his members :laugh:. Don't mean to throw you under the bus, as its not all on you, but that stuff is the reason why Tom has had to make recent changes to the site.... like put the premium members onto a different autotracker.

And for the record, my first few posts in this thread, prior to things escalating, where entirely to give suggestions on how you may improve what you have going here. IDK if you remember but I showed interests way back when you first posted about neural networks. I'm an electrical engineer by profession. I've taken Calc 1, 2 & 3, linear algebra and Diffy Q's. I've done my time, so trust that I am not in that group that struggles with percentages :laugh:

And to Burrocrat... if I didn't worry about math, I wouldn't be very good at my job :nuts:

 

[userque]

That was my point. I capitalized those words mainly because one of my earlier posts I was talking about "invalidating" the mathematics... which that was what I was talking about. I just question the validity of using that formula when it is extrapolating (when # of days is < 1 year) for any type of performance metric, and I've never seen it used in this range before (although I can't say I've looked for it). I believe the rule of thumb is to not try to extrapolate beyond 50% of the period for which you have data; so in this case it would only be realistic to estimate out to day 30.



I'm not sure why... IT has not posted anything about you that I am aware of. Well... of course until you admitted to keeping a list of his members :laugh:. Don't mean to throw you under the bus, as its not all on you, but that stuff is the reason why Tom has had to make recent changes to the site.... like put the premium members onto a different autotracker.

And for the record, my first few posts in this thread, prior to things escalating, where entirely to give suggestions on how you may improve what you have going here. IDK if you remember but I showed interests way back when you first posted about neural networks. I'm an electrical engineer by profession. I've taken Calc 1, 2 & 3, linear algebra and Diffy Q's. I've done my time, so trust that I am not in that group that struggles with percentages :laugh:

And to Burrocrat... if I didn't worry about math, I wouldn't be very good at my job :nuts:

Why? Because you're a customer of his and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you could, on your own or by request, take up his cause. Surely you're joking about IT not posting about me prior to me posting the list?

To be honest, I don't care what Tom does with the premium members.

I remember your interest and you stating you're an EE, etc. Which is why I was totally flabbergasted that you didn't know how to compound interest.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

Why? Because your a customer of his and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you could, on your own or by request, take up his cause. Surely you're joking about IT not posting about me prior to me posting the list?

Are you serious? Its a subscription... its not a cult. We don't have IT mass every Sunday morning (...its Wednesday). Have you never had a magazine subscription? or a subscription to anything for that matter? And no I wasn't joking. I can't remember your name being mentioned once in his premium threads... unless of course you are one of the bar tenders at TZA :laugh::laugh::laugh:

To be honest, I don't care what Tom does with the premium members.

That's pretty selfish bro

I remember your interest and you stating you're an EE, etc. Which is why I was totally flabbergasted that you didn't know how to compound interest.

While it has nothing to do with EE, I know how to compound interest...thanks :notrust:

 

[userque]

Are you serious? Its a subscription... its not a cult. We don't have IT mass every Sunday morning (...its Wednesday). Have you never had a magazine subscription? or a subscription to anything for that matter? And no I wasn't joking. I can't remember your name being mentioned once in his premium threads... unless of course you are one of the bar tenders at TZA :laugh::laugh::laugh:


That's pretty selfish bro


While it has nothing to do with EE, I know how to compound interest...thanks :notrust:

Anyway, compounding interest is Math. Something EE's etc. take a lot of. And, as the record reflects: you got it wrong.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

Anyway, compounding interest is Math. Something EE's etc. take a lot of. And, as the record reflects: you got it wrong.

You seem to enjoy pointing out other people's mistakes way too much...

And actually I didn't calculate anything wrong. I intentionally did not include the compounding of interest. My 'error' was in assuming compounding could be ignored, which I openly admitted... no one accounts for compounding interest just for the fun of it. I've never in my life seen compounding interest impact a rate of return by a factor of 10 within a years time.

I mean... did you account for inflation in your calculation? Why not? because it makes the equations more complicated than necessary? I rest my case...

and seriously... who cares? you keep insisting on highlighting the small technicalities when the entire point was to help...to suggest a better performance metric. Not to bicker back and forth about small details. Ironically, it seems your stubborn arrogance has mucked up your own thread pretty good. I was done after you posted the equation you used... then you insisted in trying to defame my intelligence in a very condescending manner.

 

[userque]

You seem to enjoy pointing out other people's mistakes way too much...

And actually I didn't calculate anything wrong. I intentionally did not include the compounding of interest. My 'error' was in assuming compounding could be ignored, which I openly admitted... no one accounts for compounding interest just for the fun of it. I've never in my life seen compounding interest impact a rate of return by a factor of 10 within a years time.

I mean... did you account for inflation in your calculation? Why not? because it makes the equations more complicated than necessary? I rest my case...

and seriously... who cares? you keep insisting on highlighting the small technicalities when the entire point was to help...to suggest a better performance metric. Not to bicker back and forth about small details. Ironically, it seems your stubborn arrogance has mucked up your own thread pretty good. I was done after you posted the equation you used... then you insisted in trying to defame my intelligence in a very condescending manner.

I point out errors when one insists they are not errors. Yes, I enjoy that.

It is not my arrogance that has mucked up my thread. First, I don't mind the muck. Second, if defending myself against accusations is arrogance, then so be it.

I can't defame your intelligence, only you can do that. You and IT came here, remember? You and IT had all the answers, remember?

By the way, your point about you knowing how to compound interest, yet choosing not doing it because it was hard is well taken.

I didn't do inflation in annualizing the rate because the industry generally doesn't as well.

 

[burrocrat]

has anybody considered representing the nueral network in the universal language instead of that stupid math? like a game of strip poker? that way everybody could see what everybody else gots instead of all these complicated calculations?

everybody could start out wearing say, 11 articles of clothing because that's a lucky number: jacket, shirt, undershirt, tie, belt, slacks, shorts, 2 wingtips, and 2 black hose. (that's 'hose' not ho's you freaks).

if a girl wants to play then it would only be fair to let them start with 12, an even dozen. not to discriminate or favor, just that they might need a little extra support up top. it's still a win win for every body. it'd be like playing hangman or wheel of fortune, except for nekked. oh vanna, pick me a letter,

that's how i would run this game if i wasn't already busy trying to keep my ark from dashing on the rocks.

also, i would collect a cover charge at the door.

food for thought.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

I point out errors when one insists they are not errors. Yes, I enjoy that.

It is not my arrogance that has mucked up my thread. First, I don't mind the muck. Second, if defending myself against accusations is arrogance, then so be it.

I can't defame your intelligence, only you can do that. You and IT came here, remember? You and IT had all the answers, remember?

By the way, your point about you knowing how to compound interest, yet choosing not doing it because it was hard is well taken.

I didn't do inflation in annualizing the rate because the industry generally doesn't as well.

See you pick and choose... and apparently put words in my mouth.

Humor me...

What error did I make and where is its corresponding denial?
Where did I say I chose not to do it because it was HARD?
What did I accuse you of? I thought I addressed this already...
Can you show me an example of industry using the equation you've used, in the manner you've used it, with < 1 year of data?

 

[userque]

ok...after i eat the breakfast i cooked.

 

[userque]

See you pick and choose... and apparently put words in my mouth.

Humor me...

What error did I make and where is its corresponding denial?
Where did I say I chose not to do it because it was HARD?
What did I accuse you of? I thought I addressed this already...
Can you show me an example of industry using the equation you've used, in the manner you've used it, with < 1 year of data?

1. You initially tried to correct my numbers. Rather than compute the annualized rate in your calculations, you computed a simple average. This evidences the fact that you didn't understand annualizing rates. Rather than admit that, you argue that you don't do it that way. Well, when you are trying to correct someone in what they are doing, you can't correct them by doing it another way, unless that way is the correct way. You thought you were doing it correctly. For these reasons, I find you not creditable. That is my opinion.

2. I believe you said "complicated."?

3. I didn't say you accused me.

4. The website I previously posted speaks to using the equation. Obviously, if one has less than a years' data, they can only use that amount of data. I'm not going to search the internet for an example where someone calculated a yearly rate with less than a years' data. I'm fine with you doing it your way on your spreadsheet, and me doing it my way on mine: The same way I've been doing it for the S-Fund Challenge since March, which you haven't objected to.

Humored?

 

[jpcavin]

Hey boys. I'm starting a premium service based on my charming personality. Wanna join?

 

[burrocrat]

does the hat count as one?

and is it the left or the right one that has the charming personality?

i'm not sure this game is going to work out so well for me.

(god rest my soul, cougar gonna get mad).

 

[Tiger25]

I watched Tom Petty and Stevie on stage last night doing a concert in Gainsville. I love both of their music. I watched part of a movie today titled Springsteen and I. It was impressive. God gave us Music and College Football. Happy Saturday !!!

 

[Tiger25]

I in if she's in. She can keep her hat on. ha ha

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

1. You initially tried to correct my numbers. Rather than compute the annualized rate in your calculations, you computed a simple average. This evidences the fact that you didn't understand annualizing rates. Rather than admit that, you argue that you don't do it that way. Well, when you are trying to correct someone in what they are doing, you can't correct them by doing it another way, unless that way is the correct way. You thought you were doing it correctly. For these reasons, I find you not creditable. That is my opinion.

I did not try to correct, I tried to duplicate. I hope you realize there are multiple ways to compute an annualized rate. You don't HAVE to include compounding (aka reinvestment). APR and APY in the context of loans and interest-baring accounts do because it can be predicted exactly with 100% certainty. And even the equation you used I believe assumes compounding daily, as opposed to yearly, monthly, hourly, or continuously.

2. I believe you said "complicated."?

How is that wrong? Do you not agree that including compounding is a more complicated calculation, than ignoring it? I'd venture to say no one else on this forum explicitly uses compounding like you've used it.

3. I didn't say you accused me.

oh?...

if defending myself against accusations

after you accused me of not calculating the number properly

4. The website I previously posted speaks to using the equation. Obviously, if one has less than a years' data, they can only use that amount of data. I'm not going to search the internet for an example where someone calculated a yearly rate with less than a years' data. I'm fine with you doing it your way on your spreadsheet, and me doing it my way on mine: The same way I've been doing it for the S-Fund Challenge since March, which you haven't objected to.

Figured.

 

[burrocrat]

She can keep her hat on.

i'm betting not for very long.

 

[userque]

Originally Posted by userque
1. You initially tried to correct my numbers. Rather than compute the annualized rate in your calculations, you computed a simple average. This evidences the fact that you didn't understand annualizing rates. Rather than admit that, you argue that you don't do it that way. Well, when you are trying to correct someone in what they are doing, you can't correct them by doing it another way, unless that way is the correct way. You thought you were doing it correctly. For these reasons, I find you not creditable. That is my opinion.

Originally Posted by k0nkuzh0n
I did not try to correct, I tried to duplicate. I hope you realize there are multiple ways to compute an annualized rate. You don't HAVE to include compounding (aka reinvestment). APR and APY in the context of loans and interest-baring accounts do because it can be predicted exactly with 100% certainty. And even the equation you used I believe assumes compounding daily, as opposed to yearly, monthly, hourly, or continuously.

I stand by my findings on this point. I guess we agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by k0nkuzh0n
Where did I say I chose not to do it because it was HARD?

Originally Posted by userque
2. I believe you said "complicated."?

Originally Posted by k0nkuzh0n
How is that wrong? Do you not agree that including compounding is a more complicated calculation, than ignoring it? I'd venture to say no one else on this forum explicitly uses compounding like you've used it.

Lol, you asked a question. I corrected my quote. You then took my correction as though I said something was "wrong.":blink:

And finally, you are correct regarding "accusations."