Richard Smith Trading System: Test Drive

[Norbert]

After purchasing and (very quickly) reading richardsok 's interesting Kindle book on Amazon, I decided to try his system out.  I set up "Growth of $10k" tests on a Yahoo-linked spreadsheet to compare trading strategies based on historical market activity from December 31, 2014 through last Friday.

Trading strategies:

• Parabolic SAR indicator; buy if PSAR is less than the price
  
• MA Crossover indicator (3-day vs 15-day); buy if the fast MA is greater than the slow MA
  
• Hybrid Conservative (buy only if both the PSAR and MA Crossover indicators say "Buy"); otherwise stay out
• Hybrid Aggressive (buy if either PSAR or MA Crossover signal "Buy"); otherwise stay out
  
• Buy & Hold

Richard emphasizes in his book that it's critical to select very low volatility securities for trading.  He helpfully provides a list of the "best securities to trade" and a "B List".  I relied on his picks for my test.

My test also includes popular, but relatively high volatility securities like SPY, SCHD, VEA, etc. 

The results posted here show Total Return from backtest start and the Maximum Drawdown experienced for each strategy at any time during the backtest run.

Observations

Richards' two favorite indicators generally backtest very well against his recommended trading vehicles.  They achieve higher returns with lower volatility than a Buy & Hold approach for this group of securities. (There are a couple of exceptions.)  Of course, this is a backtest against a set of low-volatility securities that we already know performed well historically using Richard's indicators.  We obviously don't know how his strategies will perform going forward. 

I have not drawn firm conclusions about which strategy works best, but lean towards the "Hybrid Conservative".  Thoughts? 

Other thoughts about how to improve the strategy returns?  One idea would be to use relative strength logic to choose which ETFs or stocks to overweight (assuming that multiple securities display a "Buy" signal); the RSI might be useful for that.

Richard recommends avoiding flat markets, but I did not include this criteria in my backtests.  That's because it struck me as subjective and I wanted to do a strictly mechanical test, without second guessing trades in any way.  (However, if richardsok can give me a trading rule regarding flat markets, I'll be happy to include it in my spreadsheet.)  Richard also gets into position sizing questions in his book, but my tests are more simple: "all or nothing".

Richards' system performs less impressively against popular ETFs like SPY, SCHD, IWM, VEA, and so forth.  More importantly, the Buy & Hold returns on these securities were generally significantly higher than those of his favorite securities, albeit with considerable volatility (measured by "Maximum Drawdown %" in my spreadsheet).  Buy & Hold generally worked better for this group of securities, though not always.  So, investors who favor Buy & Hold of major indexes or dividend-focused ETFs like SCHD will have reason to feel good about their approach. 

On the other hand, markets have been pumped up by the government's easy money policies during the backtest period. The S&P 500 went nowhere from 2000 to 2010; who knows where it will go over the next ten years?

Apologies for my inevitable errors and misstatements, which I will attempt to rectify after they're pointed out. 

Thanks to Richard for publishing his book, for providing clear strategy rules, and for offering a list of tradable securities!

Norbert

[racqueteer]

Nov 28, 2022 9:56:32 GMT Norbert said:

After purchasing and (very quickly) reading richardsok 's interesting Kindle book on Amazon, I decided to try it out.  I set up "Growth of $10k" tests on a Yahoo-linked spreadsheet to compare trading strategies based on historical market activity from December 1, 2014 through last Friday.

.... 

Thanks to Richard for publishing his book, for providing clear strategy rules, and for offering a list of tradable securities!

Norbert

Thank you for the very complete (and prompt) review; I'm sure others will find it interesting as well.  I will be buying it once I can get things settled down and can devote the time to actually READING it!

[richardsok]

Thank you Norbert. VERY impressive. I could fuss with your data but feel obligated to restrain myself. The book should stand on its own merits and critics given free rein.



Let me just point out a couple of notes:



1. I repeatedly cite "buy and hold" and long-term dollar cost averaging of a mixed stock/bond portfolio has been the royal road to wealth for people with no interest in the stock market. I mention by name books by Andrew Tobias and Suze Orman as places to go for absolute beginners or non-traders.  I have argued that buy and hold has worked wonderfully well in the past, especially for the non-trading public, but suspect our way forward will be far, far different than markets we have become used to. With massive debt-ridden geo/political/macro-economic landmines in our future, I'm now apt to believe in NOTHING but focused trend data and cold flexibility.
    Buy-and-hold analysis depends very much on the calendar parameters of your study.  In 1935 no one ever came to old Joe Kennedy with a ten-year chart praising buy-and hold.

2.   Perhaps I should have been more clear that my techniques are not intended as decade-long strategies.

3.   We have never really discussed internal biases or emotions on these boards.  I stress that charts simply MUST be honed down to the utter essentials for maximum trading success.  We have never examined how the price-flutters of typical candlestick charts work on our inclinations.  I attach a recent chart I made which did not make it into the kindle version but which I may include in the paperback.  It will be difficult for me  to be persuaded that DVolT does not effectively protect against losses or trigger a timely share in gains.   

4.   Your chart implies signal-selling and going to cash. Very good, but it does not address the possibilities of deploying long/short positions  on DVolT triggers .
With TLT/TBF and long/short AOM you may enjoy the theoretical opportunity to be constantly gaining in ALL markets.  

-----
P.S.  Kindly note I began this post saying I wouldn't argue with your results ... and that is exactly what I did !   Sorry.  Sorry.  Sorry.


Scan0004.pdf (159.88 KB)

[archer]

Nice work on the spreadsheet Norbert!

Would it be possible to tally the averages for each column for each of the 3 PFs? Off the top of my head I agree the hybrid (agg) looks like it did the best averaging the 11 assets in the top section of the chart, and best Sharpe as well.

[Norbert]

APOLOGIES, but I just uncovered an error in my "Drawdown" calculations. Sadly, the drawdowns are greater than I originally posted.

The chart in the opening post has now been corrected.

[Norbert]

Nov 28, 2022 16:02:11 GMT archer said:

Nice work on the spreadsheet Norbert!

Would it be possible to tally the averages for each column for each of the 3 PFs? Off the top of my head I agree the hybrid (agg) looks like it did the best averaging the 11 assets in the top section of the chart, and best Sharpe as well.

Hi,

I added averages for Richard's recommended ETFs & stocks; and also for the generic group of ETFs I tossed into the spreadsheet.

Sorry again for the calculation error on Drawdowns.

N.

[Norbert]

Nov 28, 2022 15:43:41 GMT richardsok said:

Thank you Norbert. VERY impressive. I could fuss with your data but feel obligated to restrain myself. The book should stand on its own merits and critics given free rein.



Let me just point out a couple of notes:



1. I repeatedly cite "buy and hold" and long-term dollar cost averaging of a mixed stock/bond portfolio has been the royal road to wealth for people with no interest in the stock market. I mention by name books by Andrew Tobias and Suze Orman as places to go for absolute beginners or non-traders.  I have argued that buy and hold has worked wonderfully well in the past, especially for the non-trading public, but suspect our way forward will be far, far different than markets we have become used to. With massive debt-ridden geo/political/macro-economic landmines in our future, I'm now apt to believe in NOTHING but focused trend data and cold flexibility.
    Buy-and-hold analysis depends very much on the calendar parameters of your study.  In 1935 no one ever came to old Joe Kennedy with a ten-year chart praising buy-and hold.

2.   Perhaps I should have been more clear that my techniques are not intended as decade-long strategies.

3.   We have never really discussed internal biases or emotions on these boards.  I stress that charts simply MUST be honed down to the utter essentials for maximum trading success.  We have never examined how the price-flutters of typical candlestick charts work on our inclinations.  I attach a recent chart I made which did not make it into the kindle version but which I may include in the paperback.  It will be difficult for me  to be persuaded that DVolT does not effectively protect against losses or trigger a timely share in gains.   

4.   Your chart implies signal-selling and going to cash. Very good, but it does not address the possibilities of deploying long/short positions  on DVolT triggers .
With TLT/TBF and long/short AOM you may enjoy the theoretical opportunity to be constantly gaining in ALL markets.  

-----
P.S.  Kindly note I began this post saying I wouldn't argue with your results ... and that is exactly what I did !   Sorry.  Sorry.  Sorry.


View Attachment

I agree that the next several years could be challenging. 

On the subject of going short, my previous modeling work tells me that it's challenging to do successfully.  When I get some more time, I may play with the idea here.

Hey, argue with anything you want.  That's how we solve challenges and move forward. 

[uncleharley]

On the subject of selling short, My limited experiance has been that bear markets drop faster than bull markets rise. One needs to be a bit quicker on the trigger with short sales than longs. My limited success has been with index or sector funds rather than individual stock issues.
Defining or recognizing a flat market can be done with a momentum indicator such as MACD or ADX or other.

[richardsok]

Nov 28, 2022 17:44:15 GMT uncleharley said:

On the subject of selling short, My limited experiance has been that bear markets drop faster than bull markets rise. One needs to be a bit quicker on the trigger with short sales than longs. My limited success has been with index or sector funds rather than individual stock issues.
Defining or recognizing a flat market can be done with a momentum indicator such as MACD or ADX or other.

I have to refer you to my book, harley.    With DVolT discipline you do have the very practical opportunity to play both sides of the L/S fence -- something that I agree has been very hairy but is now workable.  I also have a section in the book that agrees with your viewpoint that downside momo is often far more volatile than bullish trends.... but with the right ponies, I aver it CAN be done, Specifically, a little while back I switched over from TBF to TLT, now heading the opposite direction and trending nicely.

(I really have to stop laying out my arguments here.   What I NEED is for some of you guys to read the book and write reviews.)

[archer]

Norbert, Lately there has been a growing amount of prediction that the future will be a perhaps volatile, and a more range bound market. And the bears have their ideas too. If willing, now that you have your spreadsheet set up, it would be interesting to show individual years, 2015, 2021, 2022, separately to compare flat, bull, and bear markets.

[Norbert]

richardsok

Thinking about your book and the strategy you describe, I like the clarity of your trading rules. You cite specific indicators and explain how to use them.  You suggest that we do not second-guess the indicators.

However, one area that might need more work is security selection: what to trade. You describe the general characteristic of very low volatility securities. But, it would be helpful to have specific rules for security selection so the selection process is less subjective:

• Low standard deviation?
  
• High Sharpe?
  
• High Sortino?
• Low historical draw-down?
• Other criteria?  Use a combination?
  

I'm concerned about the robustness of your strategy.  Success (relative to B&H) is limited to certain low-vol ETFs/stocks and to certain years. 

A major risk in designing mechanical trading systems is fooling ourselves by cherry-picking what has worked in the past for certain securities, but won't necessarily work in the future for the same or other securities. I've noticed that some of my mechanical trading systems backtest great for certain ETFs, but fail miserably with others.  No surprise: ETFs that worked in the past suddenly stopped working.  The system that I had congratulated myself on creating turned out to be garbage.

I hope you take all this suggestion in the spirit with which it's intended: to improve and perfect ideas for profitable trading systems.  It's extremely challenging to beat the market, but let's try.

[Norbert]

archer

Here are the annual returns for each strategy, just for nine funds/securities. 

[Norbert]

continued ...

[Norbert]

another three ...

[archer]

Hi Norbert, I appreciate you going to the trouble to put those charts together! It appears that in the sideways market of 2015, Richards recommended funds did substantially better than B&H, especially with P-SAR. 2022 Hybrid cons excelled. Non recommended funds more hit and miss.

I'd say Richards system pretty well hits the mark, Clark.

[Norbert]

Nov 29, 2022 16:23:55 GMT archer said:

Hi Norbert, I appreciate you going to the trouble to put those charts together! It appears that in the sideways market of 2015, Richards recommended funds did substantially better than B&H, especially with P-SAR. 2022 Hybrid cons excelled. Non recommended funds more hit and miss.

I'd say Richards system pretty well hits the mark, Clark.

For 2015, the average return using P-SAR was -4%.  Using B&H, it was -1%.  This is based solely on Richard's top group of 10 securities.

However, Richard's strategies definitely worked better than B&H in 2022, looking at his selected securities.  B&H worked better for the S&P 500 this year, which surprises me.

Anyway, with the spreadsheet set up, I'll report in on performance going forward.  That's the acid test.

Just the facts, Jack.

[Mustang]

Disclaimer: I have not read the book. I do not know which funds were recommended and which weren't. I don't do technical analysis. And, I'm a buy and hold investor. If I have something wrong please explain it to me.

The top half of the chart in the first post had average return PSAR 39% to B&H 27%. The bottom half B&H return was 109%, PSAR was 66%. None of the various methodologies beat the B&H average return of the funds in the bottom half.

Of the nine spreadsheets posted later:
BRK-B: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 114% to PSAR 62%. B&H was the highest.
TLT: B&H was higher in 6 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 1% to PSAR -4%.  Hybrid Cons @ 22% was the highest.
MMT: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 44% to PSAR 54%. Hybrid Agg @ 67% was the highest.

AOM: B&H was higher in 4 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 32% to PSAR 31%. MA Cross & Hybrid Agg @34%.

SPY: B&H was higher in 7 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 127% to PSAR 74%. B&H was the highest.
PGP: B&H was higher in 6 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H -21% to PSAR -33%. MA Cross @ 28% was the highest.
VWINX: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years, 2 ties. Gth% was B&H 48% to PSAR 46%.  Hybrid Agg @ 59% was the highest.
PRWCX: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years, 1 tie. Gth% was B&H 109% to PSAR 73%.  B&H was the highest.
PDI: B&H was higher in 6 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 59% to PSAR 24%.   B&H was the highest.

It seems to me that the methodology only works for specific funds or specific categories of funds.  I might have this wrong but the results seem kind of random to me and Buy and Hold seems to do pretty good.

[Norbert]

Nov 29, 2022 19:10:57 GMT Mustang said:

Disclaimer: I have not read the book. I do not know which funds were recommended and which weren't. I don't do technical analysis. And, I'm a buy and hold investor. If I have something wrong please explain it to me.

The top half of the chart in the first post had average return PSAR 39% to B&H 27%. The bottom half B&H return was 109%, PSAR was 66%. None of the various methodologies beat the B&H average return of the funds in the bottom half.

Of the nine spreadsheets posted later:
BRK-B: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 114% to PSAR 62%. B&H was the highest.
TLT: B&H was higher in 6 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 1% to PSAR -4%.  Hybrid Cons @ 22% was the highest.
MMT: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 44% to PSAR 54%. Hybrid Agg @ 67% was the highest.

AOM: B&H was higher in 4 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 32% to PSAR 31%. MA Cross & Hybrid Agg @34%.

SPY: B&H was higher in 7 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 127% to PSAR 74%. B&H was the highest.
PGP: B&H was higher in 6 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H -21% to PSAR -33%. MA Cross @ 28% was the highest.
VWINX: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years, 2 ties. Gth% was B&H 48% to PSAR 46%.  Hybrid Agg @ 59% was the highest.
PRWCX: B&H was higher in 5 of 8 years, 1 tie. Gth% was B&H 109% to PSAR 73%.  B&H was the highest.
PDI: B&H was higher in 6 of 8 years. Gth% was B&H 59% to PSAR 24%.   B&H was the highest.

It seems to me that the methodology only works for specific funds or specific categories of funds.  I might have this wrong but the results seem kind of random to me and Buy and Hold seems to do pretty good.

Hi Mustang,

Based on my understanding of Richard's book, his strategy is to use certain technical indicators to trade very low volatility ETFs or stocks.  The underlying idea, as I see it, is to tune out market noise and attempt to identify true turning points for such securities.

I did a quick backtest using Richard's favorite list of ETFs and stocks; I also ran backtests using popular ETFs like SPY, SCHD, QQQ, etc.

The results do look good relative to B&H when trading his selected group of securities; less good when looking at various other ETFs.  But, Richard is clear that his system only works with selected, very low volatility securities.  Picking the right securities is central to his approach.

So far, so good.

My concern is that it's easy to be fooled with backtests using a selected group of ETFs.  I have asked him to provide clear rules for security selection; I don't want to rely on anecdotal evidence or subjective guesswork.  Once we have such rules, we could run more extensive tests. 

As it stands, Richard may have chosen particular ETFs and stocks because they happen to work well with his system in the past; not because they have characteristics that will make them tradable going forward.  It's possible that Richard is an astute trader; and has used his personal knowledge and experience to succeed; not just the logic presented in his book.

Quantitative modeling is a hobby of mine (and was something I did professionally); I know how easy it is to be tricked into thinking I've found the Holy Grail of investing. 

Personally, I think Richard may be on to something, but that more work may be needed.  The annual results even for his selected ETFs and stocks are pretty haphazard.  I'd like to see it made more robust, able to handle different types of situation more reliably.

FWIW,

Norbert

[richardsok]

In the immortal words of Gordon Gekko ----

READ.     THE.     BOOK.

I've priced the dern thing so 'stang wouldn't HAVE to post "I haven't read  the book but ...."   and someone else paraphrases a one-sentence interpretation.

We're already getting deep into the weeds here, fellas.    And I'll be THRILLED to debate and argue the fine points of my thinking until we're collapsed to exhaustion.
What I need now are honest  "Customer Reviews" on AMAZON.   Though I have some sales, as of this moment I don;t have a single solitary Customer Review posted up there.   Not one.

I don't have nearly the traction of authors backed by the big publishing houses.  And, yes, I promise, I WILL go mano-a-mano on the theories and back-tests and what-ifs.... but I NEED some  reviews up on Amazon first.   My fear is that everyone will read the posts here and figure they already sorta know what it's all about, (and they DON'T!).... and for me that will be another review lost.

And let's get real, Lucille.  The level of sophistication on these boards is in the 95-99th percentile of all small investors.  I wrote I don't EXPECT to turn your investment thinking upside down.   I wrote:  "Experienced investors with real knowledge will find a new perspective to hone those skills and supplement their best tactics, but rookies still on page seventeen of their Stocks For Dummies book will find a guide to help them enter into trading – carefully and successfully."

IOW,, for you guys here on BigB I hope to SUPPLEMENT your investing theories, not to persuade you to go overboard in following my thinking.   And that means you MUST read the book,.     The people who need a COMPLETE kind of "unified theory of investing" that MEMOS offers are mid-level investors, people buffetted with waves of news, stymied by information overload, half-knowledge, fears, reckless confidence, and too many choices.    For them my book was written to reduce choice and news paralysis, defend against bias and emotions to give them a clear path to improved success.   

Norbie -- (and I say this in the friendliest manner possible) I have a SERIOUS bone to pick with you about the back-testing data you're putting up.    And yes I WILL contest them with you -- rationally and courteously -- (I think you KNOW I will!)   but could I first get a couple of reviews, guys?   Please?

I'm not asking for "Ode On A Grecian Urn" here, fellas -- just that someone throws me a couple of bones  before we get any further into the debating.

[archer]

richardsok, OK, you got your 1st review Pugh!

[Norbert]

Is there a problem with my tests, Celeste? Gotta tell me why, McFly!

All things considered, Richard, you don't want me to post a review at Amazon. Not just yet, Lafayette.

I want you to succeed, Hamid.

Seriously, I'm skeptical that the book will help investors be successful traders. (If you knew how many hours I've spent on stuff like this!) Will post a very positive review, or nothing.

[liftlock]

Norbert,

Thanks for sharing your back test results.  Do have any statistics or observations about the number of trades per year, % of winning versus losing trades?  Using 3 and 15 day MA's suggests frequent trades.

I have added Richards book to my to do list.

[FD1000]

Richard, I feel for you and understand you. You can't win, no matter what you post. Soon, you will be asked to supply all trades and % in each ETF/Fund in real time. Most don't understand or care to to look at the entire SYSTEM, but they sure have opinions.  You can spend a lot of time, and you will still come short. Most will think you are just obsessed, crazy and/or weird.
If you try to go after these people, they will say you have an attitude.  If you show your results, they say you are arrogant.  
Here lies the biggest problem, we all lose.  We already lost the best posters, the ones who really had something unique.

I finally found a good solution several years ago. Find some friends with like-minded system and discuss all opinions and trades freely off the boards.  No need to convince and prove anything, we just want to make money and let them all lose by not posting what we do in real time, remember, we don't have a clue.

Maybe one day you will understand the above...maybe, not 
Or maybe just put Norbert on ignore, it works pretty well.

[archer]

I do hope others will take a few minutes to write a review for Richard. He's asking for a review of his book, not the perfection of his trading strategy.
richardsok, Do our reviews take time to be approved and be posted? I wrote one several hours ago and I see it isn't showing up.

[Norbert]

Nov 30, 2022 4:42:59 GMT FD1000 said:

Richard, I feel for you and understand you. You can't win, no matter what you post. Soon, you will be asked to supply all trades and % in each ETF/Fund in real time. Most don't understand or care to to look at the entire SYSTEM, but they sure have opinions.  You can spend a lot of time, and you will still come short. Most will think you are just obsessed, crazy and/or weird.
If you try to go after these people, they will say you have an attitude.  If you show your results, they say you are arrogant.  
Here lies the biggest problem, we all lose.  We already lost the best posters, the ones who really had something unique.

I finally found a good solution several years ago. Find some friends with like-minded system and discuss all opinions and trades freely off the boards.  No need to convince and prove anything, we just want to make money and let them all lose by not posting what we do in real time, remember, we don't have a clue.

Maybe one day you will understand the above...maybe, not 
Or maybe just put Norbert on ignore, it works pretty well.

This is a ridiculous post by a disingenuous individual with the habit of bragging about his trading skills, but unwilling to post trades in real time. We only hear about supposed trades after the fact. Who would buy a fund with no track record, only claims to glory by the fund manager? That would be extremely naive.

I've spent hours reading Richard's book and constructing an Excel spreadsheet to explore his ideas; have praised the fact that Richard recommends specific indicators and the type of security to employ them with. (Also, Richard posts his trades in real time on BB.)

Furthermore, I've worked with mechanical trading systems for years. It's been a serious hobby.

I have no doubts about Richard's trading skills, just about the viability and robustness of the methods described in his book.

Richard has concerns about my testing, but hasn't yet explained what they are. I attempted to program my model using rules exactly as described in the book. I can say that the tests are the same type as I used to explore my own trading ideas.

I have a concern about the subjective nature of trading vehicle selection and am looking for quantifiable rules. I'm focused on that because of my personal modeling experience; I once thought I had invented a sure-fire trading system, only to discover that it only worked randomly, for certain ETFs and not others. However, clear rules for security selection could fix that problem. It's a sincere request.

The online world is full of charlatans like FD. I personally think he's mentally ill, with an unhealthy need to continuously seek attention on multiple Internet sites.

On the other hand, I have great respect for Richard and am trying to make his system work.

I can't separate the book from the content. It's not reasonable to post an Amazon review until I know more. That wouldn't be fair to Richard and wouldn't be fair to prospective buyers.

[Norbert]

Nov 30, 2022 1:38:41 GMT liftlock said:

Norbert,

Thanks for sharing your back test results.  Do have any statistics or observations about the number of trades per year, % of winning versus losing trades?  Using 3 and 15 day MA's suggests frequent trades.

I have added Richards book to my to do list.

I'll take a quick look, but am only back in my office for six more days. Then it's off to Australia for three months, with only a smartphone, swimming gear, and presents for my brand new twin granddaughters.

[chang]

Nov 30, 2022 5:48:21 GMT Norbert said:

I'll take a quick look, but am only back in my office for six more days. Then it's off to Australia for three months, with only a smartphone, swimming gear, and presents for my brand new twin granddaughters.

Congratulations, Norbert! I assume that’s N…e who must be a mother, wife, and now Australian citizen? Wow.

[Norbert]

Nov 30, 2022 6:42:11 GMT chang said:

Nov 30, 2022 5:48:21 GMT Norbert said:

I'll take a quick look, but am only back in my office for six more days. Then it's off to Australia for three months, with only a smartphone, swimming gear, and presents for my brand new twin granddaughters.

Congratulations, Norbert! I assume that’s N…e who must be a mother, wife, and now Australian citizen? Wow.

Thanks, Chang! 

Yes, they obtained Australian citizenship a few months ago.  That's her 4th passport.  I suggested going for Israeli citizenship to make it an even 5 passports, but none of our family is technically Jewish.  I guess that will be more challenging, particularly with the new conservative government.

Actually, the marriage won't happen until early 2024, as they delayed because of Covid travel restrictions.  None of her French friends could have attended.

She'll continue her professional activities after a certain time.  Having twins means less time lost to pregnancy, as they wanted to have two children anyway, LOL.  Considering the cost of daycare, I think she'll be flying in her parents to help out.

[richardsok]

Thanks, FD.   I understand your viewpoint, but this one is on me.  I announced the book and for all intents and purposes invited a trial by fire.  Freedom to examine and  post sharply is important and questioning claims iis, after all, what we do here.   We're just starting the joust, and so far posts haven't gotten personal in this thread and it's in everyone's interest not to decline that way.   (If it does, I promise it won't be started by me.)   N has promised to write either a good review or nothing at all, which strikes me as quite  gentlemanly.

My interest is to be sure (as far as I can) that people who criticize the book (A) have actually read it and (B) report it factually AS IT WAS WRITTEN -- not surmising or projecting and (C) to be sure backtests are done accurately.  Already we have a big issue brewing -- I can see we face a whole wall of colorful back-tested analyses which are, in critical areas, clearly VERY erroneous.   I will make my case in a day or so to give people a decent chance to read at least part of the book so they can talk from a position of understanding instead of guessing.

I intend to defend my baby vigorously, but if I demand everyone keep an open, inquiring mind, then I must do the same.  I have great confidence in DVolT.  You will remember I wrote a series of long posts about it in juvenile form on Armchair back in January and February. (It was well received back then -- including, I recall, by you.) I have been thinking about DVolT  and testing it in a small way for over a year now.

But in the end the book must stand on its merits, not on how I'm able to spin it.

[richardsok]

Thanks, archer. As this is the only book I've ever written I can't give you a clear answer how Amazon operates. I'm guessing that there is some sort of vetting delay for reviews b/c you're the second person to have told me he's written a review that hasn't appeared. Yet -- I hope.