Nearly Random Entry vs a High Probability Entry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from xbrxx:
This is because... money management cannot save you from a extreme down or up day. Take this for example. Markets are tanking like a mofo. You flip your coin. Heads = buy. Tails = short. Guess what it lands on heads. You buy into the falling market. You attempt to manage your money as everyone is heading for the doors.

xbrxx [/B]
More...

The assumption here is that this random entry approach requires a fixed mechanical exit. If the exit is discretionary on the other hand the position in a strong trending market could be closed on the next tic with a small loss + commission.

Looking forward to seeing the LottoGirl rules!

ramora
 
You're right sometimes I am in a hurry and read posts in diagonal. So when rereading it is even more basic than I understood in the first place : it is just the usual "arbitrage" strategy in a large sense because in strict sense - the economists- it needs simultaneity of buying and shorting an asset or a serie of equivalent assets (for carrying no risk to have so called free lunch), whereas arbitrage in large sense used by community traders means buying then shorting or vice versa in very short term by profiting from deviation from the mean from randomness of return - not price since price follows random walk and random walk is not random. This kind of strategy is mostly adopted by scalpers and market makers are mostly scalpers. So the difficulty is not concept but realisation. Since I have been adopted this style of trading many years ago (but no more today) I know that there is nothing much to discuss that's why you don't hear much from such scalpers: they won't parade brilliantly in discussion and get the admiration of the crowd contrary to swingers who will claim fantastic win/loss ratios :D.

I have assisted to this kind of scalpers/swingers confrontationmany times: this is nothing new and the huge majority of swingers have kind of disdain for scalpers - whereas there are fewer scalpers that have disdain for swingers. Scalpers don't understand why people look for complication and swingers don't believe that there is so called (near) free lunch. There is such near free lunch but it disappears as fast as it appears and it needs conditions of realisation (notably liquidity access on the scale where one operates). The equity curve of such scalper is linear most of the time but it can face sudden breakdown from time to time until the big one would break him definitely. So blow-off of scalpers after years is the risk that many scalpers can't generally imagine - but it has happened for example on french market: after 1998 many independant traders on the floor - so who are professionals - have been blowed off after many years of success. Novices generally adopt naturally this kind of style and can even get apparently successful for months and then will get blowed off.

Many scalpers will keep that style if they are successful - by chance or not I won't discuss that here - and won't look for something else because they are firm believer that there is nothing to predict and that little but almost sure thing is better than big promise of win with low probability. Now if one has better knowledge there is no reason to stay in "pure" scalp style.

In conclusion you can choose that kind of style (which makes you a kind of market maker or arbitragist) but you will have to make the market maker. The problem will be to last not for days/months but for years. The difference is that market makers risk is backed fully by underlying assets so they can afford to do so it is not the case of most individuals.

Quote from inandlong:

Harry', it would be much easier to understand this thread if you did take the time to read it. Briefly, the community participating in this thread, save one, accepts the term random entry to mean any entry not derived from some type of analysis. This type of entry, as stated in the thread, might be from a random number generator, a cat walking on a keyboard, the lotto ball numbers, etc.

In this community, for the purpose of this discussion, the generally accepted definition of random entry is as above. However, the 'one' referenced previously is unable to accept the local generally accepted definition. So to facilitate the discussion, the thread title was changed.

Again, I encourage you to read the thread for a complete understanding.
More...
 
Quote from nitro:




Nope, realtime chatroom posts are WORTHLESS as far as proof. Perhaps it is enough for you - but take note that in the real world where real people put real money behind real people, not people behing handles in a public forum, the MINIMUM is an auditable track record. No one says, "Ooh aah, come to the Elite Trader chatroom and watch me trade. You'll see how good I am." Paul Tudor Jones replies, "Son, you are the best random trader I have ever seen in a chatroom, and the EliteTrader chatroom no less. Here is 100M dollars to manage for me in your Random Capital Management Fund."
More...


I wasn't aware that damir -- or anyone else -- was suggesting that trades called in a chatroom were sufficient proof or sufficient evidence that he could trade in such manner, to the point of entrusting him with money to manage.
The simple point is that trades called in real time 'prove' -- to the extent that fills at those prices can realistically be assumed -- that the methodology has any validity. Of course to make REAL money out of it, you would still need to be pyschologically capable of trading that way, but that was never the point; I don't think the discussion was ever about (except maybe in nitro's mind) making real money -- in the sense that damir, as we speak, is making real money at this -- only that the potential for making realy money in such a manner is highlighted. That might not be the whole enchilada, but it's a lot better than 'worthless'.
 
Quote from nitro:


You are incorrect on all counts. For example, all Susan would have to do is strip the clearing statement of all personal information, and make the .html of the trades made available on a public server, not the actual blotter.

As far as necessary for proof of efficacy, THERE IS NO GREATER PROOF.
Why would I allow someone on a chatboard named "Susan" access my account, and become the person in charge of making my brokerage account public? I would not, since I don't trust anyone else to have access to my brokerage account, in the first place, and in the second place and it is entirely unnecessary to do that, (real time posts are adequate to show that something can be done), and in the third place, Susan could easily alter data before posting it. As long as there is human intervention, posting data from a purported private record, not in real time at all, it can be faked.

I should add, to Susan, I have no idea who you are and I mean nothing personal in my comments about you. For some reason this fellow has decided you're to be trusted with access to my brokerage account, and I'm simply balking at that, no matter who you are. I mean to cast no aspersions upon your character, of which I know nothing.

You are saying there is no greater proof than your accessing my brokerage account and I say that there is. So, we don't agree. Therefore you will not be interested at all in LottoGirl's results and we can look forward to your failure to be participating or discussing those results, since you are dismissing them out of hand. You will not, logically, engage in any further discussion of the matter.

Nope, realtime chatroom posts are WORTHLESS as far as proof. Perhaps it is enough for you - but take note that in the real world where real people put real money behind real people, not people behing handles in a public forum, the MINIMUM is an auditable track record. No one says, "Ooh aah, come to the Elite Trader chatroom and watch me trade. You'll see how good I am." Paul Tudor Jones replies, "Son, you are the best random trader I have ever seen in a chatroom, and the EliteTrader chatroom no less. Here is 100M dollars to manage for me in your Random Capital Management Fund."
No one asked to manage anyone's money here, and you're the only person who keeps raising it. I'd recommend strongly to you that you to keep your hands off other peoples' accounts and also away from managing others' money for them. Just as I do. lol And I remind you that Damir made no such (improper) suggestions. All of that is from you!

The lotto numbers as a trade time selector and direction is a perfectly good random number generator. The only thing that those that are interested in following this event is to ask for EXACT methods of how the balls will be used to get a time and direction.

All that has already been asked and answered, and LottoGirl will surely be posting that info again, in her thread. I'm pleased that you approve of the method of establishing entry points. I do however, remind you that since you find the posts in realtime of these trades of no use, that you are (logically) eliminating yourself from further discussion of any of this, for you have dismissed all results out-of-hand.

Because the real traders couldn't give a cahoot about whether their "methods" pit against this on or any other one, only that their own method lines their pockets at the end of the day.

You originally offered to compete, but you changed the rules often and now you've backed out completely.

See your posts on 9/01 at 6:12PM and 8:47 PM.

In the second you say, pertinent to the first issue discussed in this post: At the end of the day, we will allow anyone to look at the trades made by allowing read-only access to the P/L, and we will allow all of ET to look in as well.

Now you are changing it from allowing everyone access to read our accounts to Susan having access to our accounts. Your "rules" endanger anyone participating.

Furthermore if you think that posts in a chatroom are worthless, would you please STOP posting altogether? I can concede that your posts, at least, are worthless, and I see you've made over 4100 of them here alone.


Fine, when this guy is done with his realtime paper trades, and he has made a million fake dollars, Susan will be waiting for you with her arms open. Just remember to mention that you are a random trader so that she knows to tell the risk department to keep their eye on you.

I'm not sure why you think I'd want Susan to be waiting for me with her arms open (Is she hugging me? Or do you think I'll be paying her off for something?), but we both thank you for volunteering her services. Or, do we?
 
You can babble and squirm all you want, but the fact remains - the only proof that something works in the markets is to do it, and for that you need CASH.

If you think that being a random trader works after this guy posts these trades to a chatroom, there will be plenty of brokers waiting for you with open arms (to say nothing of traders salivating at the mouth on the other side of these trades most of the time,) not just Susan - ALL YOU NEED IS CASH.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record.

ALL YOU NEED IS CASH...SCRATCH.. SKIP....ALL YOU NEED IS CASH..... SCRATCH..SKIP.....ALLL YOU NEED IS CASH.....SCRATCH..SKIP....ALL YOU NEED IS CASH...SCRATCH..SKIP...

nitro
Quote from OnTheEdge:

Quote from nitro:


You are incorrect on all counts. For example, all Susan would have to do is strip the clearing statement of all personal information, and make the .html of the trades made available on a public server, not the actual blotter.

As far as necessary for proof of efficacy, THERE IS NO GREATER PROOF.
Why would I allow someone on a chatboard named "Susan" access my account, and become the person in charge of making my brokerage account public? I would not, since I don't trust anyone else to have access to my brokerage account, in the first place, and in the second place and it is entirely unnecessary to do that, (real time posts are adequate to show that something can be done), and in the third place, Susan could easily alter data before posting it. As long as there is human intervention, posting data from a purported private record, not in real time at all, it can be faked.

I should add, to Susan, I have no idea who you are and I mean nothing personal in my comments about you. For some reason this fellow has decided you're to be trusted with access to my brokerage account, and I'm simply balking at that, no matter who you are. I mean to cast no aspersions upon your character, of which I know nothing.

You are saying there is no greater proof than your accessing my brokerage account and I say that there is. So, we don't agree. Therefore you will not be interested at all in LottoGirl's results and we can look forward to your failure to be participating or discussing those results, since you are dismissing them out of hand. You will not, logically, engage in any further discussion of the matter.

Nope, realtime chatroom posts are WORTHLESS as far as proof. Perhaps it is enough for you - but take note that in the real world where real people put real money behind real people, not people behing handles in a public forum, the MINIMUM is an auditable track record. No one says, "Ooh aah, come to the Elite Trader chatroom and watch me trade. You'll see how good I am." Paul Tudor Jones replies, "Son, you are the best random trader I have ever seen in a chatroom, and the EliteTrader chatroom no less. Here is 100M dollars to manage for me in your Random Capital Management Fund."
No one asked to manage anyone's money here, and you're the only person who keeps raising it. I'd recommend strongly to you that you to keep your hands off other peoples' accounts and also away from managing others' money for them. Just as I do. lol And I remind you that Damir made no such (improper) suggestions. All of that is from you!

The lotto numbers as a trade time selector and direction is a perfectly good random number generator. The only thing that those that are interested in following this event is to ask for EXACT methods of how the balls will be used to get a time and direction.

All that has already been asked and answered, and LottoGirl will surely be posting that info again, in her thread. I'm pleased that you approve of the method of establishing entry points. I do however, remind you that since you find the posts in realtime of these trades of no use, that you are (logically) eliminating yourself from further discussion of any of this, for you have dismissed all results out-of-hand.

Because the real traders couldn't give a cahoot about whether their "methods" pit against this on or any other one, only that their own method lines their pockets at the end of the day.

You originally offered to compete, but you changed the rules often and now you've backed out completely.

See your posts on 9/01 at 6:12PM and 8:47 PM.

In the second you say, pertinent to the first issue discussed in this post: At the end of the day, we will allow anyone to look at the trades made by allowing read-only access to the P/L, and we will allow all of ET to look in as well.

Now you are changing it from allowing everyone access to read our accounts to Susan having access to our accounts. Your "rules" endanger anyone participating.

Furthermore if you think that posts in a chatroom are worthless, would you please STOP posting altogether? I can concede that your posts, at least, are worthless, and I see you've made over 4100 of them here alone.


Fine, when this guy is done with his realtime paper trades, and he has made a million fake dollars, Susan will be waiting for you with her arms open. Just remember to mention that you are a random trader so that she knows to tell the risk department to keep their eye on you.

I'm not sure why you think I'd want Susan to be waiting for me with her arms open (Is she hugging me? Or do you think I'll be paying her off for something?), but we both thank you for volunteering her services. Or, do we?
More...
 
I think we've said all we can, so I'll be placing you on IGNORE for now. Bye!

Quote from nitro:

Ever get the feeling that you are debating with a sock puppet?

:eek:

nitro ROFLMAO :D
More...
 
Quote from nitro:

You can blabbe and squirm all you want, but the fact remains - the only proof that something works in the markets is to do it, and for that you need CASH.
More...


No, the 'fact' doesn't 'remain'. Because nobody here -- not even you, originally -- was asking for undeniable proof that either real money had been made or is being made trading this way. The point of contention is whether it is possible to make money this way. And posting real-time successful paper (or real, but without proof) trades, over time, would prove that it can be done; quite clearly and unambiguously demonstrate it. That is, in your own language, IRREFUTABLE.
 
I agree posts to the chat room should be enough to prove somewhat that LOTTOGIRL is on track...IM rooting for you LOTTOGIRL....dont let us down.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top