Quote from nononsense:
Plain quackery.
Has nothing to do with science.
The fellow trying to sell this to the public is a run of the mill journalist at the Wall Street Journal.
Mis-using Einstein to push Mandelbrot's stuff as science?
Einstein shew the scientific correctness of his general theory of relativity by predicting the Mercury solar transit anomaly. (Other experiments have followed since the early 1900's). What proof of predictive power as required of 'scientific knowledge' does exist for Mandelbrot's gismo's as applied to financial markets? NONE. Only some talk by a WSJ quack.
Has NOTHING to do with SCIENCE.
Quote from OddTrader:
Q
At a broad level, the idea that we need to track the sum of investor behaviour and intentions has sprung the school of thought known as behaviour finance. This field seeks to examine how and why investor "herding" takes place, how to anticipate it and finally how to anticipate reversion to fundamental mean. Most narrowly, models have been developed to track the sum of client orders and transactions. ...
--- "Currency Strategy" by Callum Henderson
UQ


As long as it's a quack like you telling me, it's ok.Quote from nitro:
You are one of the biggest quacks on this site. I doubt you know what you are talking about 1/10 of the time, if you even trade.
nitro

Quote from nitro:
Even if you were correct that the markets are manipulated in such a way as to screw the most number of participants, the "screw as many market participants as possible" [from now on known as SAMMPAP] may be a covariant theory to a well known mathematical theory of markets, for example the sited one above that markets are multifractals (which is very likely to be correct at least as an approximation or pertubation of the basic model - i.e., Log-Levy distributions and their relation to multi-fractals, etc.)
The problem is not the mathematics, it is that the evolution equations or even the theory governing the dynamics are mostly unknown in the financial markets/economics - all we can see is noisy data. If we understood exactly how SAMMPAP tries to screw over most people and could write it down as some sort of statistical equation and it's governed dynamics, we would be able to tell many things with a great deal of statistical accurary (in the Log-Levy sense.)
Quote from OddTrader:
In my mind, I've been thinking for some time the part of TA targeting the above SAMMPAP issue would be much more interesting and valuable than the conventional TA counterpart in order to make profits consistently, imo.
A book teaching such as
- "How to read and produce manipulated TA charts"
- "ABC of manipulated TA charts"
- "There are no manipulated TA charts"
- "Manipulated TA charts for dummies"
- "Manipulated TA charts for profits"
- "How I hate manipulated TA charts"
- "How I love manipulated TA charts" or
- "How to transform manipulated TA charts to readable/ tradable ones"
would be a very saleable one, probably. My 2 cents again.![]()
