I am unsubscribing from this thread. 
Predicting is ***Unavoidable***
- Thread starter aeliodon
- Start date
You and I both know that there is not a single statement that I could make that you would likely agree with. No matter how many different slants, illustrations, explanations, attempts I make, none of it will be aggreeable to you. So let's check where your at with respect to the material.
1. You admit to backtesting something that you don't understand because it has not been explained to you clearly with simple picture.
2. You only see the market as discrete and calculable and not seeable
3. You are unable to take any of the material to the bank
4. According to some recent poll 1 in 3 are able to take it to the bank
So to recap, there is more of you then there are of us. Unfortunately in trading, it is this way. However, it still squarely puts responsibility on your shoulder to sort what you do not get which turns out to be everything with respect to the material...
But in any event, because others read it and may agree or disagree, I post. So let's say you did one of your approximations (ie. upper/lower sums). Although, I'm not sure why you integrate as opposed to differentiate, we can still take note that differentiation also has an equivalent approximation. There are a bunch of them (ie. newton/trapezoidal/simpson/etc...). So opting for your discrete approach, you use the trapezoidal approach and use two current points (T & T-1) and take the delta P (discrete) and divide by (T - (T-1)). Voila, an approximation. So let's go furhur and complain about not liking (T-1). Well if you can agree that markets are not random, this is a useful bit of information that is bankable! It will still come down to using other items that are on the road in front of you to corroborate the change. So on your EMA/SMA, you note the change of the slope of the previous moments up to the current and note the steepness changing. Mon ami, this is the precursor stuff again staring back at you to get ready... But I know, you will again state back that this is discrete and way off topic even though you require simple illustrations and explanations that neither I nor anyone else can give you... So it goes...
We all know that you failed the test of the material. Your backtest fails the test of the material and as a result you have failed the test of the material. Some people have taken the material and passed the test. The market is the one that administers the test. According to the other thread poll, currently the figures are 2 out 5 passing the test, this means banking money. So this 40% stat is better then the failure rate across the board in trading (95% or 5 in 100 passing). I would suggest that you go cast your vote there but part of the conditions are that you would have used real money. Giving the conditions for a valid vote, you fail this condition also since backtesting does not use real money...
And how many live trades validate anything? 10, 20, 1000, acording to T6 several thousand??? Nobody is twisting your arm to use the material. You either do or don't. I don't have to twist a needy persons arm to accept my dollar. They either do or don't. Perhaps you missed the posts where backtests were posted by several different individuals. In then veered into sorting out what people thought were valid backtests? Apparently, it will take us 29 years 356 days of forward testing before anyone is convinced that the forward test is valid. So we are 9 days into the test... There have been videos, posts, chatrooms, etc... You don't have to believe anything. No one is twisting your arm. Only your curiosity is at play and this is an individual thing. Your handle is brand new! There are some 2000 pages of threads that you can sift through at your leisure.
Quote from fadentrade:
What Kiwi and other less statistically minded traders don't understand is that probability takes prediction out of the equation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting comment considering that probability, as defined as it refers to "Statistics" is: the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by a ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
As being in the group of "less statistically minded" (I prefer objective reasoning) traders, I (an individual with an extensive math background), would consider that when the ratio is closer to 100% that one of the more statistically astute traders would consider that a good trading opportunity and when the ratio is closer to 50% or less that one of the more statistically astute traders would consider that a less than good trading opportunity.
If one of those statistically astute traders took a higher ratio trade verses a lower ratio trade and it lost money then would one say the statistically astute trader choose (or predicted) that the higher ratio trade was statistically better because he predicted a more favorable outcome.
This being the case, please explain your above comment that, "probability takes prediction out of the equation".
To me, common sense would lend itself to saying that probabilities simply label choices as they relate to their potential statistical success. One is still predicting the success of the outcome of the trade based on it's overall (ratio based) probability.
What Kiwi and other less statistically minded traders don't understand is that probability takes prediction out of the equation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting comment considering that probability, as defined as it refers to "Statistics" is: the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by a ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
As being in the group of "less statistically minded" (I prefer objective reasoning) traders, I (an individual with an extensive math background), would consider that when the ratio is closer to 100% that one of the more statistically astute traders would consider that a good trading opportunity and when the ratio is closer to 50% or less that one of the more statistically astute traders would consider that a less than good trading opportunity.
If one of those statistically astute traders took a higher ratio trade verses a lower ratio trade and it lost money then would one say the statistically astute trader choose (or predicted) that the higher ratio trade was statistically better because he predicted a more favorable outcome.
This being the case, please explain your above comment that, "probability takes prediction out of the equation".
To me, common sense would lend itself to saying that probabilities simply label choices as they relate to their potential statistical success. One is still predicting the success of the outcome of the trade based on it's overall (ratio based) probability.
Proflogic,
I will thank you not to quote insults to me from f'wit wankers like fadentrade (since thrown off the board again).
The idea that I am less statistically minded than such halfwits is terribly insulting. Terribly.
Please refrain in future. It is enough that the halfwit will probably be back as fade_in_stink or some such later today.
Yours in all sincerity,
Kiwi