Did Altucher fail as a trader?
- Thread starter Gueco
- Start date
Yes, I think they were BSing about it. Two things:
- pre computer domination there were simple pattersn that could be picked up and exploited. Note that Schwart made his money buying bonds on Friday and selling Monday. That's not TA.
- Discipline was the key to success for all those guys (note: by the way, in later editions some of the traders were taken out because of illegalactivity)
Thanks. To be honest, when I have a topic that is interesting to me and popular to readers i also get dismayed by all the anonymous comments that spew such filth and hatred it bothers me. My wife begs me not to read comments but sometimes its hard not to.
I don't really like writing or talking about stocks so much anymore. Today I'm supposed to be speaking (this moment actually) at TEDxWallStreet but I said "no".
I just don't like Wall Street and the people who hang out at the corner of Wall and Broad.
Interesting that you think all the TA guys in Schwager's book(s) were lying. Also interesting is that you don't think exploitable "patterns" (however you may choose to define them) exist any longer, and that after years and years, "it's different this time."
As an aside, and if I recall correctly, those bond trades that Schwartz engaged in to which you refer was a short-lived phenomenon. His successful trading career preceded this quirk and it continued after it ceased to be effective. You're not being intentionally selective, are you?
I have not followed the careers of these various interviewed traders. Which ones were taken out because of illegal activity, and were these the ones who were BSing about TA?
Also, since you're here, you didn't comment on the other fellow I mentioned in my earlier post to which I provided a link in my last post addressed to you:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3483647&highlight=TA#post3483647
A) I did answer the question
B) please do your own work comparing editions and seeing who was taken out. its quite worth the effort.
C) I think they thought they were using TA but they actually weren't. So I don't necessarily think they were lying, its just a bsic example of Taleb's fooled by randomness, which is a common thing in the trading world
I've read a couple of Taleb's books. Good reads. But you're suggesting that there were a lot of monkey authors at the typewriter, many of whom used a similar dictionary, and each of whom completed a magnum opus.
Since you were quick to point out that a number of Schwager's interviewees were charged with illegal activity, I would think you could mention at least two to get me going in my research to see if they were the TA guys, rather than having to go through the whole list in at least 2 of his three Market Wizard books. Speaking of which, will you be reading his upcoming one, which is scheduled to hit the bookstore shelves in May?
A) Yes. Monkey Wizards. But also, patterns have changed. Computers have arbed out many patterns including ones that had the smell of TA. this is obvious to anyone doing software testing.
B) No, I have no interest in pointing out people who were removed. That's their business, not mine. but if you are interested I would strongly recommend you check out editions or even use a little website called google. I don't give lessons.
C) I have no interest in reading the upcoming one. I know what trading is all about. I've done it, done it with hedge funds, invested in hedge funds doing it. I've been there, done that.
Good luck.
So just to be clear, you're saying that there remain no exploitable patterns for retail traders? Keeping in mind that by "pattern," I do not specifically refer to H&S, wedges, triangles and the like, since I personally have no use for them. I refer to "patterns" in the very generic sense subject to personal albeit consistent and objective interpretation.