Film Reviews: "Broke: The New American Dream"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from ProfLogic:

I'm perplexed.

It would not be the first time I have seen you perplexed in these forums. Of all people I have spent time with, Seykota stands out:

Quote from Ed Seykota:

All methods of defining trends compare various combinations of historical price points. All trends are historical, none are in the present. There is no way to determine the current trend, or even define what current trend might mean; we can only determine historical trends. The only way to measure a now-trend (one entirely in the moment of now) would be to take two points, both in the now and compute their difference. Motion, velocity and trend do not exist in the now. They do not appear in snapshots. Trend does not exist in the now and the phrase, "the trend" has no inherent meaning. When we speak of trends, we are speaking, necessarily, from some or another view of history. There is no such thing as a current trend. When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions.

Note: Unrelated, I had to go search, but I was right. I forgot about your anti-capitalism rants of earlier. I get a kick out of your screen name to say the least! :)
 
Quote from Trend Following:

It would not be the first time I have seen you perplexed in these forums. Of all people I have spent time with, Seykota stands out:

Note: Unrelated, I had to go search, but I was right. I forgot about your anti-capitalism rants of earlier. I get a kick out of your screen name to say the least! :)

I'm about as pro-capitalism as you can get.

I am definitely not conventional though.

I agree with Ed's assessment of "trend" to a point but I've documented that motion, velocity, strength and "trend" can be viewed and defined within a real-time chart. I know that one a bar is printed is immediately becomes a historic point. Trends, as the industry sees them are absolutely projections of their own inconsistent definitions, this we agree on. My definition isn't inconsistent but is it documentable. The difference is in chart construction but that is a conversation for another time, if you are interested.

The screen name was my nickname when I trained at a corporate level. My mentor was, at one time, the youngest V.P. at Raytheon corporation in the 80's. He was considered the best in the industry at what he did, problem solving. He fined tuned my 4 years of logic training in college into the fine art of corporate problem solving to match his own track record. I simply took that skill and applied it to the deconstruction of a chart and putting it back together one objective piece at a time.
 
Quote from Trend Following:

I do not trade for clients. I trade for my own account. There is no gotcha moment.

Makes little difference. Stop evading. You said you didn't trade, PERIOD.

Don't worry we all slip up now and then, trying to cover up our BS...
 
Quote from short&naked:

Makes little difference. Stop evading. You said you didn't trade, PERIOD.

You are incorrect.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

I agree with Ed's assessment of "trend" to a point but I've documented that motion, velocity, strength and "trend" can be viewed and defined within a real-time chart. I know that one a bar is printed is immediately becomes a historic point. Trends, as the industry sees them are absolutely projections of their own inconsistent definitions, this we agree on. My definition isn't inconsistent but is it documentable. The difference is in chart construction but that is a conversation for another time, if you are interested.

If you have something to demonstrate this thinking, go for it! You disagree with the basics of what Seykota lays out? His comments are not exactly controversial, but just matter of fact.
 
Quote from TraderZones:

That was the work of someone desparate for sales, and short on integrity.

Since some might not follow your conspiracy, here is the review I posted...made up of (4) other reviews:

For comparison to other reviews, here are more:

Brett Steenbarger: http://traderfeed.blogspot.com/2007/10/turtle-trading-lessons-from-michael.html

The Complete Turtle Trader, Michael Covel's engaging and well-written account of the Turtles, covers not only the experiment, but a second generation of Turtles who were inspired by the Dennis/Eckhardt vision. One of the most interesting segments of the book covers Salem Abraham, who by chance met one of the original Turtles, took a 180 degree life turn, and began his own highly successful fund. It's a powerful illustration that, though markets have changed since the 1980s, the dynamics of success have not.

Covel's book reads more like a piece of financial journalism than I expected, and I mean that as a compliment. It is this well-rounded perspective that makes "The Complete Turtle Trader" complete and a definitive contribution to the trading literature. He has clearly researched his topic and sources his quotes. He also casts a critical eye on his subjects, investigating why some Turtles found long-term success and why others didn't. A very enlightening portion of the book concerns Richard Dennis himself, the ending of the Turtle experiment, and the master's departure from his own trading rules and principles.

For those wanting access to the Turtle philosophy and rules, they're laid out clearly and unflinchingly. This is not a methodology for the faint-hearted, which is one reason so many Turtles and would-be Turtles have not stuck with it. Large drawdowns inevitably accompany the quest for large gains, and it's those large gains that ultimately provide trend following with its edge. Investors who place their money in funds simply don't want to see 20% of their money evaporate in a quarter. This inevitably leads money managers to refine (and ultimately eviscerate) the Turtle methodology.

Many of Covel's themes will ring true to readers of this blog, including the role of deliberative practice in the acquisition of trading expertise and the importance of emotional resilience and entrepreneurial spirit in sustaining a trading career. My impression, reading the book, is that Covel is under no illusions: the methodology, which provides the statistical edge in trading, is necessary but not sufficient for success. After all, the Turtles started with the same methods; some made it, others didn't. Covel's segment discussing what separated a successful Turtle, Jerry Parker, from his less successful peers is perhaps the most insightful portion of the book.

Because Covel so clearly lays out these ingredients of success, his book is relevant not just to trend traders, but to anyone who aspires to greatness in the markets. The message is clear: to win, the odds must be in your favor, and you must have the fortitude to keep playing, remain consistent, and compound your edge. That's a formula for success in any field of endeavor, which may be why the Turtle story finds universal appeal.

Also:

From John Forman: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3M1HXSNOLKE7T/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

From Bloombberg: http://www.michaelcovel.com/2007/11/21/bloomberg-review-of-the-complete-turtletrader/

From SFO: http://www.michaelcovel.com/pdfs/sfo-review2.pdf

Now if those reviewers would have only talked to TraderZones in advance...they could have known the error of their ways...
 
Quote from Trend Following:

If you have something to demonstrate this thinking, go for it! You disagree with the basics of what Seykota lays out? His comments are not exactly controversial, but just matter of fact.


I've spoke with Ed at a couple trade shows and a couple of the basics we do agree on.
Like he, stated; "When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions." Ed is projecting his opinions and I am projecting documented facts.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

I've spoke with Ed at a couple trade shows and a couple of the basics we do agree on.
Like he, stated; "When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions." Ed is projecting his opinions and I am projecting documented facts.


while what Mr seykota states makes sense, the prof is spouting rhetoric.

this actually makes no sense. documented facts, prior to the fact? seriously, prof, while you may have a unique teaching method or whatever it makes zero sense that you will not make one call here or show your documented facts if you actually have them. it's all rhetoric--nothing more nothing less.

surf:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top