Advanced Automatic Investor

[Warren_]

Conrad:

I read the information you sent about VORTEX.
I really liked the geometric series you generated
on page 11 and how you used it on BuyOrders and
PortfolioControl. I stumbled across the exact same
relationship. I also saw that under some circumstances
you equate PortfolioControl and Equity. I don't
do this in a program, but I've found it useful
to do this exact thing on occasion.

I'm most of the way into a starting position for
a first stock and needed to know how much I needed
before I'm ready to start trading FOR REAL.
found out how much I have left to go by setting
PortfolioControl & my StockValue(equity) equal then
claiming my average cost of my shares was the proper
share price today. On the next line I put in the
REAL stock price and my version of AIM told me
I needed to buy so many shares more before we could
start working the AIM system FOR REAL. God I hope
Tom's IdiotWave is accurate. If so, the bottom is
near.

The "Lichello Flaw" irked me too but, I found
that if you use the SAFE boundaries to flag a
permission to trade then buy or sell the whole
value of Advice, the "Lichello Flaw" _goes_away_.
I never saw you subtact out a SAFE value
like in StdAIM (-AlsoKnownAs- AIM(0)) so I'm
betting we buy we do this the same too.

I've also calculated two SAFEs in such a way
as you can take the first one, add 10% to it
and you have PortfolioValue. If you add 10% to
that you have the second SAFE.

SellSAFE-PortfolioControl > PortfolioControl - BuySAFE

The two SAFEs constitute what you describe
as a "deadband".

I've heard a lot of noise about SplitSAFEs
and the difference between prices on the way
up and prices on the way down before I saw
your take on that "problem". Actually, the
relationships work out nicely if you look
at it as a problem involving logarithms. If
you express the price as a logarithm and figure
out what a 10% difference in price would be
in terms of logarithms, the 10% up is the
same as 10% down. I related the two SAFEs
logarithmicly. It's not the normal way of
doing things, but that's what makes us tinkerers
tick isn't it.

Your compounding the gains of minimal investing
periods is one way of motivating a daily
regimin(sp?) on users. I agree that a daily
regimin(sp?) is really better, but I've
mentioned Nyquist before.

You included a lot of factors of one sort or
another I wouldn't have thought to include,
but I tinkered with a number used in buying
that you talked about some on page 8. Lichello
divided the amount of shares bought by 2
before feeding this number back into PortfolioControl.
I thought the number 2 was not holy and my
method seems to work very well if we use
34/3 instead of 2. I wouldn't suggest everyone
use that number, but it works on my system.

Anyway, I read the material you sent and was taken
back that two people working independently could
arrive at such similar results.

You've included some things I wouldn't have
thought about including, but the similarities
of conclusions are frightening.

As ever,

Warren_