Search results

Only in the theoretical world do markets move in discrete increments -- you must at the least be able to account for asymmetrical payoffs when dealing with a topic such as "trend trading". Your claim is the equivalent of saying "buying options doesn't work" because 90% of options expire worthless.

But if I get paid off 7:1 for tails, as opposed to 1:7 for heads, which bet should I take now? What's with everyone's obsession here with flipped coins? Does a coin have memory? Does a coin discount the fact that it landed heads 9 times out of the last 10? How often does a real-world...

But to say something doesn't work now, using statistics as proof -- how do you know it won't work perfectly tomorrow? Isn't assuming that statistics don't "lie" the same assumption that a trend in motion will stay in motion? In other words, trendfollowing doesn't work . . . until it does?

What if there is an 80% chance buying the new high will net you 1 tick, but 20% that selling it will net you 5? How does a statistical trend (what you call proof) differ from a price trend, in that it 'works' until it doesn't?

People who talk about charts in terms of probability as opposed to expectancy miss the whole point.

I want to know what you are looking at, because I am invariably on the opposite side for some reason. Watch out for cascading stops below.

What a u-turn in this pair.

Kinda like Anna Paquin for The Piano (I think she won for her accent). Bah! Broken clock and all that. :D

This assumes you believe in backtesting . . . :)

Pretend you have the "perfect" system that catches every single dip and spike in a market. That system would need to exit and reverse in the same tick, therefore making exits of one trade the entries to the next. If you remove one element of action from the impetus of the system and give it a...

The point of the discussion is that the BEST you can ever guarantee doing with (edit) coinflip decisions = 50/50, w/ 0 slippage, by using complementary actions for heads vs tails. Beyond that, the whole thread is pointless. Given a system with positive expectancy, all a random entry gives...

All you are saying is that it is possible to have a system where random entries yields 50/50, given that the 2 choices are complementary to each other and no slippage, right?

But now we're back to flipping coins between complementary expectancies; given any strategy X, you will have the opposite expectancy with -X (given 0 slippage/spread). Since a fair coin flip gives you equal # of trades between 2 strategies whose expectancies have a SUM of 0, given future price...

What is the point of this? To make your example even easier, the strategy is just GO LONG X. So your opposite account is just SELL X. You have 2 accounts, one long and one short, and you flip coins between which account to look at, at any given time in future F. All you have is 2...

This is not the system, "for any action"; this is (-system), after the fact.

I still don't understand. I have a method where my exit strategy is 5pt SL and a 100pt TP from my entry, regardless of direction -- how does the coin flip work here? I've flipped heads, what now?

What is the point of that, having one account long X and another account short X? You are just negating expectancies, given 0 slippage and spread. Someone else can give a better argument than I can at the moment, I just woke up from a nap and my brain is foggy.

Imagine you have a stop loss at 5 ticks and target of 100. If the market just ranges up and down 20 ticks, it doesn't matter if you flip heads or tails, you will have -pl either way.

Nice to see them rewarding actors for work in thinly released films. What are the odds Scorsese finally wins? Can't they retroactively take one away from Redford or Costner? Bunch of idiots. Btw, Pauline Kael panned The Exorcist and preferred the sequel. I despise her even more...

I had thought maybe some 'financial advisor' tried to sell you the idea, the timing was eery.