Kudos to MMs

shortie · Aug 8, 2011

Quote from atticus:

Just think of those juicy convergence gains when we (must) snap back to fairval at 1400.

1392.25

we must see at least 100 rally really soon (by soon i mean tomorrow), or FV model must be scratched and rebuilt from the ground up.

kinggyppo · Aug 9, 2011

I recommend the following:

http://www.scotchwhisky.net/

tradingjournals · Aug 9, 2011

Quote from Maverick74:

Look, all models are a form of a security blanket. We use them to have the courage to make decisions that we intuitively know we should make.

Your post is like a post from an intelligent idiot. That is not why models are used: they are used for insight, and analysis, to support decision making. In other words, similar to art, models can be viewed as lies that tell the truth.

Maverick74 · Aug 9, 2011

Quote from tradingjournals:

Your post is like a post from an intelligent idiot. That is not why models are used: they are used for insight, and analysis, to support decision making. In other words, similar to art, models can be viewed as lies that tell the truth.

Now that is some sublime bullshit kid. Aren't you back in school yet?

stock777 · Aug 9, 2011

just plain idiot is more like it

nitro · Aug 9, 2011

"FV" 1370.83

I have not made the change to calibrate model to use new metric.

nitro · Aug 9, 2011

Ok, calibrated "FV" is 1198.75.

The calibration is likely to change. The underlying idea is sound, but my equation is probably not the final product.

dont · Aug 9, 2011

Quote from nitro:

Ok, calibrated "FV" is 1198.75.

The calibration is likely to change. The underlying idea is sound, but my equation is probably not the final product.

Fuck you are demented!!!!!!!!!!

shortie · Aug 9, 2011

Quote from nitro:

Ok, calibrated "FV" is 1198.75.

The calibration is likely to change. The underlying idea is sound, but my equation is probably not the final product.

the value makes much more sense now

nitro · Aug 9, 2011

Quote from shortie:

the value makes much more sense now

Does it? I am not convinced. Alas, what I have found is that direction is relatively easy to gather, but level is incredibly hard.

Without a guidepost to "FV", we stay on the same side of the market through momentum and faith, until something challenges that faith. I belive in FV, but I am finding that if I want to stay with market swings and still use it for level, I have to introduce concepts that seem at best artificial.

The lure of FV is that it lead the markets for so long. But now it lags it. I believe the concept is correct, but my model is simply nowhere near dynamic enough as it stands.

I probably got lucky and captured an extreme set of parameters that the market was keying on at that point in time. I belived they were universal, when they were just "in play". The underlying theory of FV is sound, but the markets keep rotating on what they key on. FWIW, it taught me quite a bit about the regime we were in when it worked. We learn more from success than failure, so I just need to understand the rotation.

The programming challenges are the least of the challenges, but even those are not trivial.