Search results

Rapidly reaching that conclusion myself.

Lots of posts have provided some level of detail on why TA can succeed. That you've basically ignored them is on you, not the rest of us posting. How many times, for example, have I told you that my "version" of TA is an algorithm? Do you know the definition of an algorithm? It ain't got...

This guy is clearly someone who will latch on to anything. When "price drivers" fails, next year it will be something else. I bet he doesn't even get to 1,000 trades using "price drivers", much less get to 1,000 trades with a net profit. What was he saying yesterday about them, that he has...

Says the guy who touted his 3, yes, 3, winning trades in a row. Thank God for the Internet, because I usually don't come across people this clueless in real life. Let's me know how the other half lives. I mean the half below the median IQ, that is.

Funny thing is, I was looking at the compiled trade records I have since I really solidified my methodology last May. Since then, I've recorded 770 trades with 52% winners. Excel tells me that the odds of that happening if my actual win rate was a random 50-50 are less than 2%. So, at better...

I don't like to wade into the "speculative psychology" waters that often, but I think that in a business with such a high failure rate, one way to keep yourself relevant is to always be touting something new, regardless of whether it's really new or really valuable or really just "new wine in...

Ain't that the truth!

Regardless of how long the strategy stays in force, it is fixed for that period of time. According to your grand theory of "immediate market data obsolescence", even a week is too long for a single strategy to remain effective. You've painted yourself into a corner where only your "market...

No one said there weren't runs in both types, but that there were more runs in real stock charts vs. random stock charts. Again, you are knocking down strawmen.

So, if I am interpreting your chart correctly, there are more multi-step movements in the same direction in actual prices than would be predicted by random prices? If prices were truly random, we would see more sequences of 1 move in one direction followed by 1 move in the opposite direction...

Why do I insist on this? Because for me TA "can be" (not that everyone would actually implement it this way, but I implement it this way) a form of algorithmic trading. Algorithms are, by definition, objective and programmable. What I don't understand is how you can, on the one hand, defend...

Hah, hah. No problem. Surf has something of a point, he's just pushing it too far.

I'd say that this is arguably true 90% of the time. At least, there is sufficient randomness during that 90% that my algorithm can't pick up a signal, so what I'm really saying is that I don't have a dog in that fight. The other 10% of the time, it's false and past data can be used to identify...

Man, I know you can't see it because it is hard to be objective about ourselves, but you can't believe how stupid it looks to be making these grand pronouncements about TA and then go touting 3 winning trades in a row. For a guy who talks so much about coin flips and random entries, you'd think...

Aronson did not suggest the idea to me, I found his idea after I had already developed my own, which is completely independent of his and doesn't work in the same way at all. The concept may be old, but it's all in the execution of the concept. "Space travel" was an idea as old as time, but...

Yeah, maybe Neiderhoffer missed a couple of tests on that "volatility edge". I just find the whole "Oh, that's already been done by so-and-so" annoying. Primarily because the number of ways in which an edge can be discovered is, for practical purposes, nearly infinite. The scope for...

Yeah, because there's only "one" volatility edge. Get over yourself. You need to come to grips with the fact that you are not omniscient with regards to ways in which to analyze the market. You just come across as a self-important ignoramus. The market doesn't need to "evolve" to fool the...

So, you think the lifespan of an objective edge is more than 10 years? The way Surf talks, they only last a couple of years and then they (apparently) disappear forever. With such a major discrepancy in opinion, it seems to me that you are better off trading one as soon as it appears, so...

The human species existed for hundreds of thousands of years without liberals and the West arguably made its fastest progress in the historical eras without any trace of liberal input (at least not in the sense of today's liberal), e.g. the Greco-Roman era and the Renaissance, as well as some...

I'd love to know where you guys are getting the proofs for this statement. If I develop an objective edge via a positive expectancy algorithm with very explicit rules, unless I tell the details to someone else, how is that edge going to be exploited to death? If I'm the only one trading those...