Search results

The lack of a viable trading plan is far and away the main reason why beginners fail. Look at the nonsense spouted in this thread: anybody can win in demo; only losing real money teaches you how to trade; mechanical systems never work. Amazing.

Not sure what your point is. My point was to answer his statement that no mechanical system worked. I provided an example of one that did. Yes computers follow the law of Garbage In, Garbage Out. So do humans. I don't see the garbage in the link I provided.

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/just-show-me-one-mechanical-technical-analysis-that-has-been-profitably-backtested.147576/page-5#post-2218032

This thread is comical. People who do well in demo but fail with real money have psychological issues, not trading strategy issues. The notion that everybody can do well in demo is too hilarious to take seriously. The notion that only trading with real money teaches real trading is almost as...

Never say KISS ("Keep it simple, stupid.") The simplest strategy is buy&hold. Good luck getting that to work once the bull goes away. The trader who wins is the one whose strategy falls into the sweet spot between overly complicated and overly simplified.

Forget seminars. The good ones (if there are any) are few and far between, and probably overpriced in any event. Here is the best way to learn options: http://www.amazon.com/Rookies-Guide-Options-Beginners-Handbook/dp/193435404X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 It will take you all the way from zero to...

No. http://www.amazon.com/How-Trade-Living-Gary-Smith/dp/0471355143 Gary Smith is an ET member but I forget his member nick.

Of course some people lose money in the stock market. Wtf does that have to do with your fairytale that TA never works? Dude, if you can disprove the backtest results, then do it. Otherwise you're just blowing your usual smoke.

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/just-show-me-one-mechanical-technical-analysis-that-has-been-profitably-backtested.147576/page-5#post-2218032 Doesn't look like random outcomes to me. :p

Which fund was it and what type of proof were they looking for? TIA.

Everybody seems intent on missing my point. This isn't about lateral thinking or creativity, which is great. This isn't about thinking outside the box. This is about a lame example that simply fails. Using a barometer to measure altitude is a SOLVED problem. All the creativity has already been...

Seriously, this wasn't a class in creative writing, it wasn't a class in engineering design and it wasn't a class in experimental physics. All of those benefit from creativity. This was a test in basic physics. If the student fails to demonstrate his knowledge of the core material, he has...

The link I provided gives the history of the problem if you can be arsed to look it up. As far as the problem itself, in the absense of a barometer, the other answers make sense. Go for the weighted rope, go for the stopwatch, go for the bribeable super, go nuts. BUT given a working barometer...

The last sentence is precisely the problem. It strikes me as some rightbot/libertarian add-on that is nowhere in the original presentation: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp As I said, the story fails because using the barometer as intended is provably the best answer. There's...

Sorry but this anecdote fails in its intended purpose. The students were taught what a barometer was and how to use it to measure altitudes. There was no process of discovery. What the smartass demonstrated was that he was as smart as a caveman ("Me use rope!"), not that he was as smart as...

The lesson in your anecdote is : there's more than one way to skin a cat, but only obstinate assholes go out of their way to pick the least efficient ways of doing it. But I'm sure that's not what the anecdote fabricator had in mind. ;)

No. A true asshole. The purpose of the test question was to see if the students had learned the principle of pressure difference to measure heights. This is how altimeters work. Airplanes don't use ropes, gravity drops, shadows and other nonsense to measure their altitudes. They use differences...

The thread title is deliberately provocative. The OP likes to cause unnecessary controversy.

You don't know that. You're taking his average return and treating it like an absolute constant return, which it emphatically is not. The period Thorp averaged over was mostly a raging bull market. Every investor in the bulk of the '90s was minting coin.

These "separate" goals are co-dependent, not independent. Not losing money is fully compatible with making money. It's like bringing in a big paycheck while not losing money on frivolous expenses or excessive credit card debt. Both actions enhance your bottom line. As for rebalancing, that's...