我的中文需要再加努力，不能完全理解內容，若詞不達意請勿見笑。 不明白三個問題是指什麼？ Rickey的確是很狂妄，但事實上他的成就很高。 金錢是不分種族，只視乎窮或富的民族。中國人廿年前在國外和今天是兩個世界，種族歧視對我來說感受很深。期貨可令人脫貧，越多華人在這領域上成功便可減少外國人向我們提款。 華爾街大多的基金經理，比我們的表現還要差，花錢穿西裝上班吃熱狗，留在中國多好。
Futures Truth: How do you prepare for your trading day? Rickey Cheung: To be honest, I simply turn on my computer with my trading system. Then I calmly watch the real time quotes and do my trading in a relaxed manner. As my winning edge is not based on moving averages or other pivot points, I really do not need to study or prepare yesterday's chart or data to be used for today's trade. I feel that one must enjoy trading - if it is too tense or requires too much total focus etc..., I believe the trader will get burned out easily. Trading must be enjoyable or else there is no point to do so. the indicator(s) used are proprietary in nature and not disclosed. it doesn't use any of the so called "popular" indicators such as moving averages, range breakouts, oscillators, support and resistance levels, and more. According to Future Truth's John Hill as quoted on the RC website, the system uses a "very unusual" indicator in its logic, and he has "not seen any systems that use similar indicators."
Rickey Cheung: The real edge of RC model is the RC Indicators which measure the intraday strength and weakness of the market, and act accordingly. It is NOT based on the past winning patterns that most systems incorporate. Most systems trade on past patterns (a few days or longer), whereas my systems have forward-looking characteristics.
大家有更多的信息贴一下，许多和RC system， Rickey Cheung 相关的内容国内打不开，懒得翻墙了 http://rcdaytradingroom.com/rickey_cheung_developer.php About RC Trade Systems How I developed the RC Success SP Day Trade Systems... Without a doubt trading eMinis is the most complicated process a trader can embark on. Since the introduction of my RC success system many traders have been amazed and have asked me how I was able to create such a consistent trading system for eMinis. I must admit that I was just about as astonished as they were. My Discovery... You see, my discovery came about through a scientific approach while I was attempting to develop my own trading edge. Finally, in June 2002, I developed my trading edge. In order to see how good I really was at trading, I started emailing my trading signals to some well-known traders. The feedback was exceptional, but I had to wonder whether or not it could last. Programming the Indicators... My friend Dr. Brett, told me to write down my trading strategies in a mechanical, systematic manner so I could verify whether I indeed had a trading edge and so I would not have to try to explain my system to others. At that time, I knew nothing about programming and had no interest whatsoever in computer work. In my wildest dreams I never imagined I would become a trading system developer. I possessed no knowledge or skill in regard to programming with Easy Language (a programming language) or using Trade Station. Knowledge of such was very limited in Hong Kong at the time and still is. Knowledge of Easy Language and the use of Trade Station were needed in order to develop the system. I hired an Easy Language specialist and a computer science student in Hong Kong. Her job initially was to study and learn Trade Station and to communicate with the Easy Language specialist who helped me to program my trading methodology into the system. We were really a team of the blind leading the blind because my strategies are very unique and cannot be found in Trade Station functions. Because of this, the specialist had a hard time understanding what I wanted to do and the student knew nothing about trading. They applied their knowledge the best they could to try and accomplish what I wanted to do. It was a tedious and expensive process with a lot of bugs and misunderstandings, but we were all determined to make the project a success. Upon Dr. Brett's advice to back test the system as far back as possible, I purchased data back to 1998. We back tested and perfected code which was extremely time consuming and costly. In fact, the development of my first system cost approximately US$50,000. Through the entire process Dr. Brett analyzed the system and made comments. I also sent the performance results to other gurus. Dr. Brett and the others would tell me it was good but not as good other systems on the market so we would go back to the drawing board to make it better. Improving Profit per Trade... The most popular S&P day trading systems got profits of $350 per trade at the time and after eight months of writing, my system was getting a hypothetical profit factor of 2.5 with a profit percentage of 70%, but the profit per trade was only $120. We set out to improve the profit per trade because it was most important. It seemed as though I was making no progress because the way I traded made the difference, performance wasn't based solely on a mechanical aspect. Some of the popular systems that Dr B referred me to for the purpose of comparing results were showing a profit per trade of $350 and were trading almost three times as many trades as my system. In order to get more profit per trade my system had to trade less and to trade very conservatively. Failure an Option? After months of hard, dedicated work, I still could not get a profit per trade of $350. I was getting extremely discouraged but I never once thought of giving up. I knew my trading edge was the best; the challenge was in programming it. Honestly, I had an enormous amount of time and money invested in the project and I just couldn't walk away from it empty handed. My resources were quickly depleting and I was in a race against time to complete the system before my savings ran out as I was working twelve or more hours a day on the system and had no time to trade to make money. I was disappointed and feeling somewhat defeated, but I knew that I was a very good trader with many winning strategies and sound logic, so the quest continued. I attempted to program more of my trading strategies into the system; however, many of them simply could not be systematically defined. I'm unsure as to whether the problem was in my explanation or in the programmers understanding of my theory. At any rate, only about 60% of my personal trading strategies have been able to be incorporated into an electronic trading system that is 100% mechanical. Turning Things Around... This phase of disappointment was the darkest period after I discovered the secret of trading profitably with the trading edge, but life has a way of turning things around in his own time. One day, out of pure desperation I picked up the performance results a trading guru had sent me and took a long, close look at the data. I suddenly realized that, while my system was based on the eMini SP, the Gurus were testing with large S&P data. I was writing my own programs based on the SP eMini which has a dollar value 5 times less than the big SP system. Curiously, this was how my programming was set up by the specialists and my technicians, thus my results were flawed and none of us had realized that we were not comparing apples to apples. The systems that my system was being compared to were using the big SP to publish their results while I was using eMini SP data. Even Dr. Brett did not realize this fact, so he continued to push me to do better because it appeared that the results from my system were still far behind other systems that were available in the market. RC Success Once this was realized, I immediately reprogrammed my system workspace using the big S&P. Making the correction took less than three minutes and the result was an exceptional, consistent trading system that generated an average of 12 points or $600.00 per hypothetical trade - one that trades infrequently but with the highest profits per trade - RC Success. The rest was easy. I started developing another system – RC Miracles which traded more aggressively, RC Success traded only once in three days as an average. By March 2004, I had sent my systems to Future Truths for a four month incubation period and they were released in October 2004 with RC Miracles ranking #1 and RC Success ranking #2. (Futures Truth tracks hypothetical results) (Note: Past results are not indicative of future results) What I learned from all this is that really good and robust systems are developed with a trading edge, not just programming, technical analysis or mathematics. RC Success system demonstrates that a good system can be developed even without programming knowledge. The single most important ingredient of a system is a sound logic with good strategies. This is what sets the RC systems apart from others. This is how and why I became a system developer. It is not something I set out to be, it is just something that happened – perhaps an unpredictable instance of meaningful coincidence, serendipity, or fate. In Jan 2005 , I continue develop other RC Systems using different strategies. Also I have two proprietary system for managed fund. I may develop system to trade on other market in coming futures. Thanks for reading this simple story.
非常好 食者知其味，闻都未闻到的却在对人家予以“挞伐”，真实有趣 百万，还不够一个基金一个1%%波动的资金损失，也能算贵？买套设备花几千万算是毛毛雨，花100万学套本事就算贵，真是搞笑 多谢楼主，不过那粤语看起来好费劲
100万对于亿万资金的管理人来说是毛毛雨，他们向市场交的学费远大于此，而且他们也不在乎这些，因为都是客户的钱。 而对于那些想通过“培训”白手起家，走捷径一夜暴富的人来说，100万可能是他们无法承担的“学费”。
好吧，我也歪一把楼～ 可能是130～150这个不上不下的阶段吧，换句话说，能看出问题大概轮廓，但无力弄清楚它究竟是什么，怎么说呢，心有余而力不足吧。 160之后开始惜墨如金，不愿意在上面耗费精力。 其实情商这个东西怎么说呢，最初的原意是创造出来给140段的人用的，以便在保有他们个性的同时还能处理好周遭的关系，因为他们不会在金字塔的顶端，还得仰仗别人的鼻息，他们在理性与个性之间挣扎...有了情商这个工具，他们就可以更好的保护自己与周遭的关系。 但后来传媒传着传着，情商这个东西就变了个味，变成引以为傲的资本也就算了，还很多130都不到的捧成圣经群起而攻，让本来是受助人的工具成了攻击者的利器——这的确很滑稽。 而160之后算是“开了窍”，他们做出个选择，当然具体形式有很多，有的是计算了人情练达后的成本，有的则是通盘考虑了重复博弈的平衡点的取舍，有的是索性在心中建立起一个理想国，为自己颇骨感的梦想筑梦...某种意义上，他们是一群另类又有点可怜的弱势群体。 所以，希望大家可以营造一种宽容的氛围来对待这群异类，不为什么，就当为了自己，他们是一群，可以找到而且愿意充当那个能让你撬动地球的支点的那个人... 其实这是两条平行的线，倘若觉得拘泥小节，人情练达便是作为一个人一生的成就，在十多亿人之中平平凡凡的，的确也很好。但我觉得那种希望能跳出框框思考，不愿作为社会架构中的一颗齿轮的，怀有挚诚但能否为后人留下宝贵遗产都没个谱就舍弃了那种普遍意义的成功，这种人更值得敬重——起码他们是自发的施予而不是无奈的消耗。 同时最好也不要嘲笑他们的“志向”，（据典我忘了差不多，能记得的只有个大概）。是说有个人家里来的访客，访客觉得他家颇凌乱问何故，他说的是“大丈夫当扫天下，安事一屋？”而这位访客有颇有深度颇有内涵的反问，“一屋不扫何以扫天下？” ，好了我们耳熟能详的典故到这里就结束了，一直没有人问”那后来呢？“ ... 后来是那人成了扫天下的大将军，而那个造访者好像至今未见经传...
好吧，我也继续歪歪一下。 首先解释一下我们普通意义下的智商和情商，其实他们都是定义而已，我们没有必要从表面上就把他们对立起来，而是应该去探讨他们各自本身代表的是什么意义，就像数学中的定义一样探讨定义本身的合理性没有太多意义，而是应该去看这些定义的目的。 所谓的智商一般指的是逻辑思考的能力，所谓的情商一般指的是形象思考的能力。 不管是智商还是情商，即使有天生的潜力，都需要后天的锻炼才能体现出来。 智商是在认识客观事物并运用知识解决实际问题方面能够得到充分体现，所以在科学领域方面的成就往往取决于智商的高低，且科学领域似乎也没有过多的人际关系需要处理，或者说人际关系对在这个领域取得大家认为的成功并不重要。不过情商的高低在这个领域也可以从一些细枝末节看到一些，例如一些科学史的人物获得巨大成就的背后往往伴随着一些和同伴纠缠不清的矛盾。 情商则在处理人与人，人与社会的关系表现比较突出。所以在管理领域，不管政治还是经济，本身的办事能力以外，情商的高低也尤其重要。历史上的政治上的伟人在处理人与人之间关系无疑都是能手，因为他们往往都需要管理一个团队需要处理上级下属的关系。 有时候智商还是情商其实很难分辨，当一些人在人与人之间顺利游走毫不费劲的时候，很容易看出他们的智商比一般人高。一些人在取得巨大成就之后依然保持谦虚谨慎认真对待周围的人，也很难说他们的情商不是因为他们的智商。 没有人证明过“这是两条平行的线”。不过一个人的精力确实有限，而且想在短短一生就取得一些成就的话必须有所专长，所以一个人往往往往在一个方面锻炼多了，自然其他方面的锻炼就会少一些。我们生活中遇见的一些有古怪个性的且智商非常高的人往往也是几乎把绝大部分时间用来进行逻辑思考，所以在处理人与人的关系的时候显得力不从心，原因就是他们最初不善于或者不愿意或者缺少机会等等与人交流，后来越走越远与社会远离。尊不尊重人其实都是相互的，所以一个智商高情商不高但人品不差的人往往很容易相处也很容易得到尊重，因为他们很单纯，没有一些人的圆滑事故还算计人。 个人认为 智商＋情商＝智慧，我们追求的应该是做一个智慧的人，智商高的人不一定情商高，但情商高的人往往智商不低。但是社会的发展对一个人的要求没那么多，社会发展需要的更多的是将，而不是帅，所以我们的教育，意识形态都是更多的帮助一个人成为一名将。所以只要有一定的智商，在社会中行走应该就没有什么问题。而所谓的情商需要的并不显得那么重要，虽然某些时候对某些人看起来起了决定性作用，所以情商的锻炼更多取决于一些实际的需要和个人意识的觉醒。 可能智商对一个人的能力或者贡献起着基本的决定性作用，情商对一个人的成就的作用只能在智商差不多的时候才能比较明显地看出差别来。 PS.智力测验试图把智商数字化，但是没有人证明过智力是可以数字化的，这样的证明也没有意义，智力测验本身就是一个模糊的东西，这样东西也应该辩证的去看待，且目前的现实是智力测验正渐渐沦为一些无聊的人自我娱乐的工具。