New Report

A

Arthur Deco

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Released 2:00 PM Friday 22 September 2006:

"The CFTC is pleased to announce the creation and monthly publication of a new report to assist futures traders in entering and exiting positions profitably. This new report, called The Stupidity of Traders, is an index on an inverse scale of of 0 to 100. A score of zero indicates that collectively traders are the least stupid that they have ever been by historical standards, that is to say, breaking even before commissions. A score of 100 means that traders are the most stupid that they have ever been by historical standards, that is to say, likely to be 100% wrong on every trade.

The scale is developed by an automated search of alleged trader posts on the posting website EliteTrader.com (ET). The score itself is a normalized hit-weighted composite of the following key phrases:

"free" (weighted 10)

"have you tried" (weighted 9)

"give me" (weighted 8)

"does anyone" (weighted 7)

"where can" (weighted 6)

"who knows" (weighted 5)

"grob" (weighted 4)

"has anyone" (weighted 3)

"fuck you" (weighted 2)

"what just" (weighted 1)

This new report will be released on the fourth Friday of every month if that Friday is preceded by a Thursday. The inaugural value, based on searches performed on ET during the month of August 2006, is 99.6. This means that traders, as faithfully represented by postings on ET, achieved the pinnacle of stupidity that month. Further information on the statistical methodology and the historical normalization may be found at

http://www.cftc.gov/cftc/cftccotreports.htm

For the CFTC, The Commissioners."
 
That's all well and good, but I need to see it in indicator form. Would you know if Larry Williams has written a book about it yet, or won any world championship trading contests using this vital information?
 
I think that it is too early to tell about the SOT's prescience as a trading tool. My patients and private correspondents are all highly bullish at the moment, eager to find more funds to plunge into the market, when it looks to me like the S&P 500 is making a double top. So I think this is a propitious first test. Like all Government-generated data, however, there is always the danger that it is so lagging that it is leading. Also, the SOT methodology is quite new, and subject to change. It is always possible that new key words may be introduced. I have it on good authority that there was hot debate over whether or not to include "I'm a genius!" and "This is so good it scares me!". Also, some consideration was given to overweighted (at 100) content such as "How long will it take me to make $1M with a $2500 account trading 10:1 margin?", but that was discarded as a rare outlier.
 
That's Yankee Guvmint far ya! How could they have missed:

"My IB feed is dead!" (on MLK's birthday, presumably a Southern trader)]

and

"What gives with the low volume on NQ U6?" (This on rollover day).
 
This is perhaps too subtle for bureaucrats to algorithmize, but the percentage of new ET members with self-deprecatory handles would seem to me to be a good indicator. Handle fragments such as 666, Belly, Bright, Dog and Nonsense come to mind, as well as the injudicious and soon to be deeply regretted use of one's real name.
 
Dr. Deco, when you are quite through with your usual prevarication, would you kindly tell me how rich this new information will make me, and how soon it will do so? I'm on a get-rich-quick schedule here.
 
How could they have missed spelling errors, which negatively correlate to 98% with intelligence? For example, we have here a frequent poster who is 73, claims to be from an Ivy League school, and to be a prominent author of over 30 books, who cannot spell for shit. I mean, 73 years is time enough to learn how to spell.
 
I am so sorry, Mr. Thunderdog, but you just added 17 points to next month's report by the use of the key words "rich" and "quick". Also, I am minded to recommend to the commission that they add the freuency of posting during RMH as a scoring criterion.
 
Quote from David Hume:

How could they have missed spelling errors, which negatively correlate to 98% with intelligence? For example, we have here a frequent poster who is 73, claims to be from an Ivy League scool, and to be a prominent author of over 30 books, who cannot spell for shit. I mean, 73 years is time enough to learn how to spell.
More...
Perhaps he is spelling correctly in the alternate universe where he resides.
 
Quote from Arthur Deco:

I am so sorry, Mr. Thunderdog, but you just added 17 points to next month's report by the use of the key words "rich" and "quick". Also, I am minded to recommend to the commission that they add the freuency of posting during RMH as a scoring criterion.
More...
I gather you didn't much care for the prevarication remark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top