Search results

Oh, you're looking for the "old worn out, non testable concepts of little relevance." Back of the store, middle shelf. By the used eyeglasses.

As is common practice, you say it's only my opinion but offer no valid counterexample. If a random series is to some extent predictable based on its know parameters, then it's these determinable aspects that are the basis of the prediction, not the random ones.

If a series is random within known parameters, then it is predictable to some extent. It is also nonrandom to that same extent.

Also, ET is one way to stay mentally stimulated (or just plain mental) during those 5 minutes of downtime which occur so often.

Thanks for the reply. In addition, to say that something is, to some extent, predictable is not inconsistent with it having a random component according to my definition.

How can a trader make a profit without predicting price?

That's an interesting question. I use this one and would like to hear some feedback (with reverb): Something is effectively random to the extent that its causes are not known in a way that makes it predictable.

Tradability derives from extrapolate-ability, a property randomness does not have.

Right on.

And then Lefty the Clown pops up to add something goofy to a serious discussion.

Here is the release version: What method can be applied to past price to determine the value of a profitably large d such that |p1-p0|>=d, where p0 is the current market price and p1 will be a marketable price in the near future? To qualify, an answer must be posted in plain text and then...

No, all threads are for all members, as far as I know ET policy. How about you stay somewhat on topic and cut out the rudeness?

Why don't you start your own thread? I'm sure there are a lot of people at ET who would like to talk about your problems with you.

If you mean that all directional strategies rely on price trend following, then that's obviously an incorrect statement.

Taking noise to be roughly the same as randomness: Something is effectively random to the extent that its causes are not known in a way that makes it predictable.

Okay, I finally got it. Seems like something worth looking into.

So far, I haven't made any distinction here between daytrading and interday. Are you saying that the respective price trends within two nearly adjacent intervals of time are more likely to be positively correlated if there is an interim of high volatility between them?

There could be something there. It's not immediately clear why an existing tendency in price would be more likely to persist after an interim of high volatility, but that's just me.

Do you mean use a volatility spike as a leading indicator of a price move in a certain direction?

Now that I've had some spare time to look at it, here's an update. Constructive criticism is welcome. (Caution: The challenge question is posted again below. Anyone who is offended by this material should avert their eyes and scroll past it or direct their browser elsewhere.) What is a...