Kibitzers' Corner

[senco]

The main question is why not taking a position in GDX or closing it earlier?
I entered into a second GDX position at arund 54 and closed it at about that price, but kept the initial GDX position as per the robot's instructions.

For me, keeping a long GDX and a short IWM is sound, because it hedges against any sudden market melt down or melt up.

I made a discretionary exit at the bottom (looking at the RT MF drop), and GDX took off without me. Re-entry made sense upon reversal, but I waited for the robot to show statistical edge for re-entry - which it did not. A hedge still seems sound, but after today's jump it feels 'too late'... Mixing a mechanical system with discretionary decisions rarely worked for me; regardless of the outcome of the initial deviation from the system, it is difficult to figure out what is the right follow-up discretionary decision in order to 'get back in sync'.

[asomani]

I made a discretionary exit at the bottom (looking at the RT MF drop), and GDX took off without me. Re-entry made sense upon reversal, but I waited for the robot to show statistical edge for re-entry - which it did not. A hedge still seems sound, but after today's jump it feels 'too late'... Mixing a mechanical system with discretionary decisions rarely worked for me; regardless of the outcome of the initial deviation from the system, it is difficult to figure out what is the right follow-up discretionary decision in order to 'get back in sync'.

Same thing happened to me, and I agree with your thoughts. I like to keep discretionary trades discretionary and mechanical trades mechanical. It is difficult to get the full benefit of a mechanical system that you have tested without following it mechanically post-discovery, after all.

Here's an interesting read that is relevant to some of the feelings shared here:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlen...195.xml&part=1