Currently, there is no RMO plugin available; it's available only bundled with version 10.

I have 9.1 and no plans to upgrade at this point; v10 doesn't add anything I'm interested in, including RMO.

That would be neat trick, however the code is password protected and mum's the word on just what is included in the RMO black box. So, how do you propose porting the code to version 9.1?

BTW, Jim really does want to upgrade. He is only fooling himself. [:D]

Seriously Jim, I have taken great advantage of the newly expanded columns that are available in the Explorer under V10. I could never go back to version 9 or lower at this point. Never mind that there is a bug in the Explorer code that causes the system to crash. You can't have everything I guess.

BTW, Jim really does want to upgrade. He is only fooling himself.

NetWorthless, how do you know that? .... From what I read in this forum, Jim has consistently expressed that he won't upgrade .... or you can some "tools" read his mind..... :)

A combination of GET's premium indicators (with which Rahul Mohinder is well versed) presumably were assembled into this blackbox called RMO

Really! Unfortunately, I have never used Advanced Get, so I have no idea. Probably, someone in this forum can give some views on this.

Sa

NetWorthless,

I think you have missed something crucial........

Sa

Heh, heh. Yep, self-deluded - that's me!

I'm not opposed to upgrading per se, but v10 doesn't get me excited. I would never put my investments behind a black-box system like RMO (and still waiting for others to reveal more about what it really does) and the work I do with MS doesn't stress it much, so the improvements like more columns wouldn't make a difference. I would like to resize dialog/formula windows, but that's a major bug that needs fixing, not an enhancement, and it's not worth $200. For those who need them, I can see the value of having more columns to fool with (not exactly justifying a version 10 number assignment, but nonetheless useful for some users.)

I'm not a mechanical-system builder, more of a discretionary position-trade type guy, so the tools and plugins I've set up in MS seem to do the job within the 9.1EOD build just fine. If I ever hit the limits of MS, and a new version fixes them, I'll upgrade.

If you want a fun diversion, try using Dogpile.com or Google to search out RMO, Rahul Mohindar and Tom Joseph (author of the other "big deal" in v10: Dynamic Trend Profile) - my searches reveal nothing buy sales pitches and hype - there's nothing I've discovered that's taking anybody "by storm". I just wonder about the rationale here in Equis' developers, other than trying to rope in more recurring-revenue subscription streams.

NetWorthless,

You really missed the crucial part. It appears that your blackbox doesn't work this time!! FYI, Jim doesn't believe in "black box" system unless..... you disclose the code and the theory behind. So, your prediction this time won't be right!

:)

Here is something about RMO:

The core of this trading model is suposed to be RMO indicator wich has "taken traders like storm", right? Well if that so, i was thinking to test this RMO (a friend of mine has upgraded to v.10) and i did. The test was done in a simple way just buy when RMO crosses above 0 and sell when it crosses bellow 0, since i am only courious to see why using RMO instead a longer term MACD for example or another trend following indicator in designing a filter for trades or a complete strategy or just coloring bars to se a pretty chart or whatever u want. The primary phase of my testing with any ideea, indicator, combination of indicators and so on, is always for the purpose of getting the basic statistics of that ideea, indicator, combination and for that i test the whole market and get the % results of everything. RMO test on Nasdaq the whole market with turnover>300000 and commisions of 0.2% filter from 1992 until the present day has shown following basic statistics:

Max MFE 2647.61% Min MFE -0.40% Max MAE -0.40% Min MAE -76.35% Max P/L 1487.17% Min P/L -73.08% %Win 22.32% %Loss 77.68% Avg Win 25.39% Avg Loss -6.75% Avg Win/Loss 3.76 #Trades 5838.00 #Win 1303.00 #Loss 4535.00 #Win/#Loss 0.29 0,"Positive Expectancy of","Negative Expectancy of")'>Positive Expectancy of 0.06 Comparation Number 363.76

Well it has positive expectancy, great. Now in the same way i thought to test my *PPO (*PP Oscillator) wich has a extremely complicated formula of close crossing a simple 120 days moving average. The *PPO results on the same market, period, commisions and turnover was:

Max MFE 2745.74% Min MFE -0.40% Max MAE -0.40% Min MAE -50.85% Max P/L 1300.64% Min P/L -47.29% %Win 16.87% %Loss 83.13% Avg Win 26.78% Avg Loss -4.87% Avg Win/Loss 5.50 #Trades 7050.00 #Win 1189.00 #Loss 5861.00 #Win/#Loss 0.20 0,"Positive Expectancy of","Negative Expectancy of")'>Positive Expectancy of 0.10 Comparation Number 674.65

"RMO has taken traders like storm" , well i think its a little to much to say...

btw, i will not waste my time to see if using the RMO trading model (with fancy swing indicators and that pretty template) is worth something since i am pretty sure that it will not be better than anyone of my simple strategies done with current indicators in metastock v7 8 or 9.

hi spaceant,

yes i used RMO (Osc) >0 for buy and RMO (Osc) < 0 for sell. The purpose of my test was just to see what impact has the RMO filter on the trading model, or another way stated is RMO a better indicator than MACD or moving averages or any of the trend following indicators?

U could as well use my extremely complicated ;) *PPO instead of RMO and it will not be a big diference.

I did not made a test with the rules in the training video because i think its a waste of time. Maby later i will do it anyway and compare it with something simple.

Anyway surfing on the net i have found free strategies from simple traders wich had a great potential from my point of view. Look at this for example (check comparation number with that of my test on RMO), of course this is a complete strategy unlike my RMO test, and i have found it on the net for free (it is not mine):

Max MFE 4296.15% Min MFE -0.40% Max MAE -0.40% Min MAE -81.91% Max P/L 2782.48% Min P/L -81.08% %Win 28.28% %Loss 71.72% Avg Win 121.97% Avg Loss -9.74% Avg Win/Loss 12.53 #Trades 746.00 #Win 211.00 #Loss 535.00 #Win/#Loss 0.39 0,"Positive Expectancy of","Negative Expectancy of")'>Positive Expectancy of 2.83 Comparation Number 2,108.16

I repeat this results was obtained with a strategy taken from a site for free. its a long term strategy and the point wich i wanna make clear here is that if u wanna trade the last thing u should do, in my opinion, is to trade with a blackbox for wich u have payed (or get for free). the strategy wich has yelded the above results has everything disclosed so it is not a black box. Do u think that any pluggin is worth the money? i don`t.

Personal i like to design my own strategies but there are strategies done by simple traders that actually works and are free and nobody but the designer is using them...strange thing everyone jumps to throw money for lossing more money, i think this trading thing it is the only field in the world were people pay money to lose more money.

And the results of RMO trading model (i has not mention an exit point so i suposed that the exit should be when swing3 is crossing above swing2) with the following rules

EntryTrig:=Cross( Fml( "SwingTrd 2"), Fml( "SwingTrd 3")) AND Fml( "SwingTrd 2")>0 AND Fml( "Rahul Mohindar Osc (RMO)")>0 AND Mov(C*V,30,S)>300000;
ExitTrig:=Cross( Fml( "SwingTrd 3"), Fml( "SwingTrd 2"));
taken on the next day open and trading only long are:

Max MFE 276.56% Min MFE -0.40% Max MAE -0.40% Min MAE -59.71% Max P/L 203.74% Min P/L -48.67% %Win 32.20% %Loss 67.80% Avg Win 9.96% Avg Loss -4.95% Avg Win/Loss 2.01 #Trades 7529.00 #Win 2424.00 #Loss 5105.00 #Win/#Loss 0.47 0,"Positive Expectancy of","Negative Expectancy of")'>Negative Expectancy of -0.03 Comparation Number -229.55

with my money i would not trade this, u can do whatever u want with ur money ;)

hey gary.... if what he sends you can be tested using metastocks system tester and you have available to you the s&p 500, could you test it against those securities and let us see those results.... then the numbers would be something a metastock user could better relate to.... for some reason his are kinda confusing to me.....

the reason for using the s&p is it's dependable, the nasdaq market contains so many unstable components..... once we have numbers clear to us all, we can build a system..... then test with and without raul's deal as a filter ..........if ya have the time and can.....thanks....h