Do you need to understand where the edge comes from?

[tommcginnis]

Those assumptions are incomplete descriptions of reality. That's why all models are wrong to one degree or another.

You belabor the obvious: Universal to science (and one might say, to *reason*), models are, each and every one, simplifications of reality. You seek to criticize it for being/doing exactly what was intended. That's laughable.

Do you realize that it's 2018? And we still can't define "gravity"?? We can say what it does! We can say how it works! But we *can't* say what it IS. Light! Is it a particle? Is it a wave? DON'T KNOW. But that doesn't stop us from laser surgery. Doesn't keep us from confirming Einstein predictions 100 years after the fact, does it?

To paint a model "wrong" because it simplifies reality ..... WOW.

However it's not necessary to tell the future...just what is more likely over a statistically significant number of instances.

A beauteous thing.

 

[danielc1]

That is some heavy BS. Do you need to understand how a car engine works to be a good driver?

I rest my case.

What is important though to understand when one is just lucky to have the right strategy for the right times (like being long in a bull market) and that can change. But you don't need to understand why it is a bull market, just ride it....

Thank you, I like to BS in forums..

 

[Sprout]

Buyer, Seller and Market Maker, and the futility of arguments.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...can-be-equally-valid-at-the-same-time.326370/

 

[Peter8519]

Models or strategies will break, sometimes.
Simply, do a scan of any market, errr... let's 50 days simple moving average(I know... I know, it's a lagging indicator.) and see how many stocks that are still above it. You then compare it to the past week, month or year.

 

[schweiz]

Models or strategies will break, sometimes.
Simply, do a scan of any market, errr... let's 50 days simple moving average(I know... I know, it's a lagging indicator.) and see how many stocks that are still above it. You then compare it to the past week, month or year.

You call a 50 days MA a "model" or a "strategy" ???? ROFLMAO

You still have a long way to go before being a trader...

 

[userque]

i worked with a cray for a couple of decades running zillions of automated systems for many big firms. with a cray it took five minutes to produce a years worth of figuring out what it found. i kept seeing the same methods produced over and over again but no one including myself wanted to believe it. ...

What did you keep seeing?

 

[MarkBrown]

What did you keep seeing?

mostly that trading counter to the trend was more profitable than trading with the trend in most all popular indexes. the assumption that every top is to be sold and every bottom to be bought far out performed buying highs and selling lows. yet the trend moves are what the human eye always focuses on because they look awesome on a chart. choppy markets look perilous and so most traders avoid them. i learned to embrace reversion to the mean as a primary method.

also i learned that oscillators make better trend tools and averages make better chop tools just the opposite of how they are traditionally used.

 

[panzerman]

You belabor the obvious: Universal to science (and one might say, to *reason*), models are, each and every one, simplifications of reality. You seek to criticize it for being/doing exactly what was intended. That's laughable.

Do you realize that it's 2018? And we still can't define "gravity"?? We can say what it does! We can say how it works! But we *can't* say what it IS. Light! Is it a particle? Is it a wave? DON'T KNOW. But that doesn't stop us from laser surgery. Doesn't keep us from confirming Einstein predictions 100 years after the fact, does it?

To paint a model "wrong" because it simplifies reality ..... WOW.



A beauteous thing.

It's been a truism in financial markets forever that most traders are net losers. It's because the methods they use are too simple and cannot effectively deal with the randomness of price movements over time. You trash random walk, and its' associated skew and kurtosis, but never explain let alone prove the edge you supposedly have and how you beat the randomness. It's an anonymous public forum so I would not give two cents in a bet that you really have a proven edge.

At least I'll be honest and admit I don't have an edge. I'm a breakeven trader and have been for almost five years now. It's because I can't find a TA method that is mathematically proven to be positive expectancy, and thus programmable into an algorithm. I probably never will, but I like the academic challenge of it in order to keep my mind sharp. I also don't use price action or patterns because they are generally not mathematically provable.

 

[speedo]

It's been a truism in financial markets forever that most traders are net losers. It's because the methods they use are too simple and cannot effectively deal with the randomness of price movements over time. You trash random walk, and its' associated skew and kurtosis, but never explain let alone prove the edge you supposedly have and how you beat the randomness. It's an anonymous public forum so I would not give two cents in a bet that you really have a proven edge.

At least I'll be honest and admit I don't have an edge. I'm a breakeven trader and have been for almost five years now. It's because I can't find a TA method that is mathematically proven to be positive expectancy, and thus programmable into an algorithm. I probably never will, but I like the academic challenge of it in order to keep my mind sharp. I also don't use price action or patterns because they are generally not mathematically provable.

If you really believe that horse shit then why in God's name are you still trading ??

 

[El OchoCinco]

I'm a breakeven trader and have been for almost five years now. It's because I can't find a TA method that is mathematically proven to be positive expectancy, and thus programmable into an algorithm.

Was wondering where I was getting my day trading profits from...