Quote from fletch2:
"Consistency" is a slippery word. Is turning a profit every month without exception for 36 months "consistency"? If so, I disagree with your assertion, because I have done that. Given an edge, variance and sample size determine "consistency". What, the multi-hundred or thousand player TV tournaments? Of course not, but it's a non-sequitur from your previous sentence. Huge MTT's are the lotteries of poker. The variance is huge. But that's not how a player turns a consistent profit and everybody who has ever done it knows it. I think that's an absurd claim. You don't have all the information being fed into the market available to you. That extra information works for or against you more or less as a matter of chance, injecting an inherent luck factor in any trade. This is one thing I have learned from gambling theory and practice. Seeking "consistency" for it's own sake is a fool's errand. What you want to make money is an edge and a reasonable balance between variance and opportunity so that you can have a shot at getting into the "long term" so that your edge wins out with increasing certainty. Anything else is missing the point, including a myopic pursuit of "consistent, safe" profits. Scared money never wins. Nonsense. I do that every single day. Literally.
Cheers,
Fletch
Quote from Charlie Dow:
You've gone from "4th day of Trading" to "1 year of backtesting" to now "turning a profit every month without exception for 36 months". Then you conclude with your ability to "solve" a math equation that is constantly in a state of flux.
Your posts all contradict themselves so on that observation I will speed off to converse with the more grounded in reality.
Quote from Charlie Dow:
Just answer a few questions then.
1. How old are you.
2. How long have you been actively (8 hours a day) researching the markets?
3. What degrees do you hold and from where?
4. How long have you actively traded in the Markets, (at least one trade per day or week)?
Oh, I taught modeling and problem solving, amoung other related subjects at IBM Skills Training division until I retired. [/B]
Quote from fletch2:
If you insist. 33.
2-3 hours a day, 1 year.
PhD Numerical Analysis, Princeton University.
I thought we already covered this. 4 days.
Then you ought to be embarrased to have made your comments.
I have been a professional modeler for 11 years. The idea that a dynamic model requires Einstein to grapple with it is silly.
Cheers,
Fletch
Quote from novel20:
I have a chemical engineering background and solving thermodynamic equations are not that unusual. Charlie, are you talking about solving heat flux equations? Probably you can use some partial differential equations.
If you are talking about solving equations with random variables, stochastic Calculus is probably what you need. Have you read about the derivation of the Black-Scholes model? It has a nice closed from solution.
By the way, I agree that the original poster was talking about making money consistently in Poker, not trading.
Quote from Shreddog:
The stereotyping of engineers as non-traders is getting old. Yes, there are engineers who over-analyze everything and we've all worked with them and know the type. They tend not to get far in engineering either.
But there are those of us who don't think that way and we trade just fine, thank you. Just because we don't trade like liberal arts majors doesn't mean we can't trade. Yet we're analytical, problem solving engineers.
Quote from Charlie Dow:
Embarrassed why? I didn't say that a dynamic model requires Einstein to grapple with it, I said YOU couldn't solve an equation (in real-time) that is constantly changing.
The whole point is that IF you could solve it by the time you got the answer it wouldn't be relevant because the equation would have changed.
As I stated earlier, watch the markets for a few years and watch your beliefs change. There is no replacing FIRST HAND experience. Stop trying to be an expert in a field you have 4 days real experience in.