Search results

All trading (as the term is generally used on ET) is curve-fitting. The only difference is in the degree of fitting. IMO a bigger question is why so many people keep looking for one successfully-tested system across all kinds of symbols and all kinds of market regimes. It's like looking for...

I dunno. My father was born in a pile of smoking rubble, along with hundreds of millions of others, and spent his youth scrounging cigarette butts and boiling shoe leather. My boy was born in a shiny hospital with all the mod cons, and spends his youth playing video games, eating Lays and...

No.

That's just money. They are also born into tangible realities, like a world-class infrastructure and relatively solid rule of law.

Kahneman (and is now-gone partner Taversky) is a legend in behavioural science and decision-making. Quite possibly knows more about why you do the things you do and make the choices you do than any human being alive - including you. The book mentioned is an excellent intro to what we (meaning...

Are you talking about the feed itself, or a canned application that accesses the feed?

Virtually all socieites - social, democratic, or otherwise - fail in exactly the same manner.

Of course they would. Getting "lucky in up markets" has always worked, and will always work.

Simple thought experiment. If for one year we only allowed the 5% "proven" winners to have access to the markets, what do you think would happen? That they would battle each other to a draw? Nope. 95% of them would lose. "Mastering the psyche" has nothing to do with it. 95% (or...

That backtest confirms there are extended periods of market activity where that "bullshit" strategy does very well indeed. I'm sure the OP will appreciate learning that.

He's one of ET's resident idiots - ignore him. A lot of the time, the strategy as defined will just grind away going nowhere, that should be clear. However, it is also (effectively) fading down-gaps, and capturing a portion non-gap bull trends Some adjustment to the stop/target might be...

"This page has insecure content." No thanks.

I rather suspect that if we had a formal "no bailout" policy - and actually stuck to it - the problem would largely self-regulate. But I'm not sure it's possible without also modifying the Fed's SOP, since they provide a backdoor bailout mechanism. Anyway, this is likely all rather moot...

*scratches head* The thing is, I don't know of anybody who isn't receiving free shit.

I'm not all that smart, and even I can think of half a dozen ways around this, right off the top of my head. The only way to ameliorate - not get rid of, but ameliorate - is to get drastically shrink the size of the honey pots of money. But we are not willing to do that, politically or socially.

Completely disagree. I can understand why it might feel that way - the most vivid details are the ones we see happening in our time - but it has never been meaningfully different than it is now.

It has always been that way.

It won't work. Money is made in the cracks. If you paper over these cracks, new classes of assets will be invented to create new cracks. It's what markets do. The only defense is to get rid of TBTF (implied/explicit taxpayer backstops), so when problems occur, the rest of civilization has...

Because the debt isn't internally funded and because the economy collapses without key commodity imports. All of which have to be translated into "other people's" currencies. Printing your own is no protection - not in the real world.

The US has been doing this since the second Reagan term made it a cornerstone of federal fiscal policy.