Quote from No.Beta:
No, trading is not exact science. Exact mean that you could quantify exactly the variables of the market and then make a prediction based on this, and ALWAYS have the same outcome! (meaning that you will always win).
On the other hand, for example math is exact science because if someone give you a math problem, and also give you the algorithm to solve that problem, you will always get the same outcome.
Period.
Your comments probably reflect your belief system.
The several beliefs and their integration to get a conclusion is typical of most people who examine markets.
Quantifying the variables exactly is very possible. There are many ways to do this and one subset is correct and the other is incorrect or just partially correct.
We both recognize your outcome by the way it related to your conclusion.
My outcome turned out to be the opposite of yours.
Others share riether beiing in one of the other subset as expected. One interesting switch that was made in ET happened with a respected person in this community. (Acrurary)
I do not know of any examples of people going grom the subest I use to the subset you use.
The second element of your beliefs is the "prediction" orientation you have. We are fifferent because you operate in the future and I only am limited to the Present for trading and thinking. This is anyone's choice. We chose opposites at some point. I chose in 1957 when I began trading. What I chose was that prediction is not necessary; it has no bearing on The Present where I trade exclusively.
To trade well, there is a reliability requirement. Attaining complete no conditional reliability was one of my requirements. This makes it possible to always have any trade under control all of the time. There are three outcomes possible for any position in any market at any given time. Two of them precipitate non wins called losses.
I recommend that "wash" trades be taken and a "wash" trade incurs the premium as a cost of ding business like every other business.
Using only winning trades is the result This occurs by being in the market all the time at 5 or less times the market capacity.
The segway to the proof of this kind of operation comes from your second paragraph.
You are precisely correct that the markets are a problem. Because the markets are a problem, it is necessary, as you have determeined,to use a mathematics that is in total correspondence to the markets.
So for me, I give away the "algorithm" by a singular example, which dictates the specific mathematics required to solve the problem.
Finite mathematics has total utility because the market's paradigm has a hypothesis set that is "like kind" (See Keynes) and, therefore, logic theory, used exclusively, deductivel eliminates all noise and anomalies. The foundation of this utility of applicatiion is the total coupling of "like kind" and the small number of corresponding cases (10).
Anyone can retrace their steps that created their beliefs. No forward path takes anyone to the chidingly characterized "oblivion".
There is much much inductive evidence that the CW will not change. CW does migrate, however. A cool test is doing two searches: search ET for PA or Price Action and search Goolge ofr the same.
You can make two lists of the order of events of persons falling in line for PA.
The critical moments for me in modelling and developing trading were neat. "Serendipity strikes again" best characterizes the milestones and mini milestones.
The highway of CW is mostly based on Hope and the desire for "easy money" all up and down the sprectrum. as has been often noted Behavioral Science and Behavior Finance verifies this.
the sweetest facet of the most general rendition of BS and BF is that the two treminology streams about which predications are made ARE the key words of the HS I chose.
You didn't dvelop an association with either term.
Continuation,
Change.
NOT opposites but orthogonal.
