james I make trades with a lot less assurance than some might get from quantum mechanics. .
So when all the doubters say you can make money using t/a because you can't prove it I laugh.
97-2003 I traded milliions of shares a month -- I traded 30 - 50 trades a day. I had a 90 day period where I only lost money on 3 days. I made over 100 percent returns every year for about 5 years.
I had guys in my office who i trained in t/a methods. They made more than i did. I got a percentage of every trade and some of their profits and I paid taxes on that as well.
And you know what -- we traded trends on one minute charts. So I could give a shit if KJ says you can't use regression analysis to define a trend.
I used my eye and a moving average and it worked with a sample size that would make it virtually impossible to call luck.
so now kj asserts his view of probability theory overules noted physicists. Some of them with nobel prizes. I find it amusing. In one of his posts he is gives assurances that physicists must think like him and now he is back to this sophistry about how his view of probablity theory must rule the world.
How about a little admission that perhaps some noted physicists think the Anthropic principle should be taken seriously. I mean it was susskind who made the quoted a footnoted the scientists in his response to smolin. What more do you need than the founder of string theory stating in response to man attempting to be the arbiter of good science.
So when all the doubters say you can make money using t/a because you can't prove it I laugh.
97-2003 I traded milliions of shares a month -- I traded 30 - 50 trades a day. I had a 90 day period where I only lost money on 3 days. I made over 100 percent returns every year for about 5 years.
I had guys in my office who i trained in t/a methods. They made more than i did. I got a percentage of every trade and some of their profits and I paid taxes on that as well.
And you know what -- we traded trends on one minute charts. So I could give a shit if KJ says you can't use regression analysis to define a trend.
I used my eye and a moving average and it worked with a sample size that would make it virtually impossible to call luck.
so now kj asserts his view of probability theory overules noted physicists. Some of them with nobel prizes. I find it amusing. In one of his posts he is gives assurances that physicists must think like him and now he is back to this sophistry about how his view of probablity theory must rule the world.
How about a little admission that perhaps some noted physicists think the Anthropic principle should be taken seriously. I mean it was susskind who made the quoted a footnoted the scientists in his response to smolin. What more do you need than the founder of string theory stating in response to man attempting to be the arbiter of good science.
))) )