An idea for PDT opponents

Quote from vladiator:
my previous posts on this topic are irrelevant.
More...
Well you've made one accurate statement, at least.

Let me ask you a question: why are you so concerned about how I spend my time?

Perhaps you think how I spend my time is subject to outside dictation the same way you think my right to spend my own money is?
 
Quote from richtrader:

seems like you are averaging a flame war per night lately, vlad. :)
More...

:D LOL. You might be right there. I might be opinionated like most of my opponents, but I'm also open minded if someone presents a convincing argument. I have to admit my views on market efficiency have changed somewhat after the EMH thread and after what some (very few) ET members had to say. Also, at times I take the opposite position to promote dialogue and discussion even if I happen to be on the fence on the issue, just b/c someone has to shed light on the other side and the ET community is often onesided.
Peace :D
 
Quote from hii a_ooiioo_a:

Well you've made one accurate statement, at least.

Let me ask you a question: why are you so concerned about how I spend my time?

Perhaps you think how I spend my time is subject to outside dictation the same way you think my right to spend my own money is?
More...

whatever, I don't care how you spend you time at all. I'm sure you have a number of ways to keep yourself entertained. I WAS suggesting a clearly superior way to make your anti PDT case stronger though and if you are not getting it, I'm sorry dude, not much I can do here.
My previous posts were irrelevant to this discussion, smartass, not to the idea behind PDT.
I'll give you a piece of wisdom. Sometimes it's beneficial to both parties to side with the opponent, if at least temporarily. This is one of those cases for you. I have something to offer you don't have. It is a win/win.
 
Quote from hii a_ooiioo_a:

Look and you will see for yourself. Had the first one been genuine, he would not have written the second one as he did.
More...

The reason I wrote it the way I did was b/c I was frustrated noone showed any interest. I thought people would jump at the idea. Apparently I was wrong.
 
Getting back to the premise of your original post, I think if you take a look at the numbers, you will probably see where the PDT rule has lessened the number of traders blowing out. Think about it. If 95% of traders lose, any restrictions on their entry into trading will produce less traders losing.
 
Quote from vladiator:
A. "whatever, I don't care how you spend you time at all"

B."What the f### is wrong with you dude?"
. . . ."smartass"
More...
A. You have made numerous remarks about "how much time I spend complaining, or whining" and about how much time I spent writing to SEC etc. You seem overly concerned about how I spend my time.

B. These comments you make are supposed to convince me of your ability to create a reasoned professional impartial study?

"What the f### is wrong with you dude". Wow, you've just convinced me to place all my trust in you. I can rely on your academic professionalism. Calling me a smartass is reassuring too.

You claim you sometimes take the opposite side from what you believe "to promote dialoque". I think you just like to instigate arguments.

The whole basic premise of the "academic study" you are proposing is based on your own misguided perceptions of the intent of these rules, which has been factually pointed out to you previously. Read the NASD rules where it clearly states their intention is to protect the brokers, not the traders. Your logic has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and I have no faith in your ability to make rational deductions from anything.

I also think you're a bit of an instigator, and I really don't trust anything about your attitude.
That remark about why you wrote the second reply out of frustration that we didn't get all excited about your sincere suggestion is pure bullshit. If it were true, it merely shows your level of unprofessionalism that you would react in such a babyish manner. Had it been true you would also not have worded it at all as you did. You would have made a frowny face instead of a smiley face.
 
You seem to have a total abscence of any sense of humor as well. What I'm proposing is not based on any of my percenptions. I would be interested in seeing the results either way. I still believe that if you are any good, getting more capital should be the least of your problems. And if you are not, then you shouldn't be doing it. If you ask me, judging by your plight the regulation did a very good job.
 
Quote from Jim Bartley:

Getting back to the premise of your original post, I think if you take a look at the numbers, you will probably see where the PDT rule has lessened the number of traders blowing out. Think about it. If 95% of traders lose, any restrictions on their entry into trading will produce less traders losing.
More...

Yes, but that's just one nuance of it. A lot more can be examined. E.g. which subsets where affected in which ways etc. This can have interesting implications for how the rule can be altered so as to still accomplish its goal and avoid impairing those who need not be impaired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top