hmm.no edges in the markets

[marketsurfer]

Quote from sheda:

The present....along with all movement leading up to that point..



Explain to us exactly how it is flawed?

For the 500th time--- it's not quantified, it can not be tested, its a subjective art, yet those who use it claim it can be automated and is objective-- however, zero evidence of this exists. the market is ever changing, while it does repeat, each time is different making automatic TA systems certain to fail. It only shows the past and the past does not predict the future.

How many moves in one direction does it takes to increase the odds that the next move or series will be in the same or different direction?

surf

 

[R. Raskolnikov]

You want my exact rule set? That would give you an answer but why would I do that?

Quote from marketsurfer:



How many moves in one direction does it takes to increase the odds that the next move or series will be in the same or different direction?

surf

 

[nitro]

Quote from marketsurfer:

For the 500th time--- it's not quantified, it can not be tested, its a subjective art, yet those who use it claim it can be automated and is objective-- however, zero evidence of this exists. the market is ever changing, while it does repeat, each time is different making automatic TA systems certain to fail. It only shows the past and the past does not predict the future.

How many moves in one direction does it takes to increase the odds that the next move or series will be in the same or different direction?

surf

I have to differ with you surf, although I can not prove it.

I claim that what has been tested by academics is a very simplistic version of the TA you see in books, done in a very brain dead way. I claim that if the studies were done in a more sophisticated way, something would pop out that was undeniable.

 

[R. Raskolnikov]

For the 500th time... you are wrong.

Quote from marketsurfer:

For the 500th time--- it's not quantified, it can not be tested, its a subjective art,

surf

 

[R. Raskolnikov]

To expand on this, if studies are being done and value is discovered, it would be TRADED and not WRITTEN about.

Quote from nitro:



I claim that what has been tested by academics is a very simplistic version of the TA you see in books, done in a very brain dead way. I claim that if the studies were done in a more sophisticated way, something would pop out that was undeniable.

 

[nitro]

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

You want my exact rule set? That would give you an answer but why would I do that?

Is it coded? If it is, it would be trivial to have it post its trades to a twitter channel, and then the viability of it would be obvious. No need to give it away.

If it is not coded, and you click a mouse to make the trading decision, it will be nearly impossible to prove. My interest in it is only from an intellectual point of view.

 

[sheda]

Oh your back to bashing just automated systems now, would be funny if the post below was from someone who subjectively picked tops and informed the world that it was solid fact that could not change, eh?

Quote from marketsurfer:

For the 500th time--- it's not quantified, it can not be tested, its a subjective art, yet those who use it claim it can be automated and is objective-- however, zero evidence of this exists. the market is ever changing, while it does repeat, each time is different making automatic TA systems certain to fail. It only shows the past and the past does not predict the future.

How many moves in one direction does it takes to increase the odds that the next move or series will be in the same or different direction?

surf

 

[nitro]

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

To expand on this, if studies are being done and value is discovered, it would be TRADED and not WRITTEN about.

Sort of. The whole thing about secrecy in markets is sort of funny. Lots of papers are published all the time in more academic parts of finance that are worth a fortune. For example, options models.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from nitro:

I have to differ with you surf, although I can not prove it.

I claim that what has been tested by academics is a very simplistic version of the TA you see in books, done in a very brain dead way. I claim that if the studies were done in a more sophisticated way, something would pop out that was undeniable.

Well, there has been a study that proves the long term viability of a TA system based on the 200 day SMA--- It actually shows a slight increase in the odds away from randomness over the long term--but the edge is so slight its unprofitable due to transaction costs.

The market can't repeat in a exploitable way for long--- Because if there was, it would be found and the market would stop working. this should be common sense.

surf

 

[nitro]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Well, there has been a study that proves the long term viability of a TA system based on the 200 day SMA--- It actually shows a slight increase in the odds away from randomness over the long term--but the edge is so slight its untradable due to transaction costs.

The market can't repeat in a exploitable way for long--- Because if there was, it would be found and the market would stop working. this should be common sense.

surf

Right, markets don't repeat, the rhyme.