Predicting randomness
- Thread starter oddiduro
- Start date
a 3 dimensional look at things......SPARE ME PLEASE!!!!!!
WHY not 4 or 5? Traders keep coming up with new ways to blow themselves up, just like Victor did.
They just find new ways to lose their money to us plain and simple traders...Ya, GOTTA love this game.....
The only things i see as random are coin flips and Bush's escape plan for leaving the country he invaded.......:eek:
WHY not 4 or 5? Traders keep coming up with new ways to blow themselves up, just like Victor did.
They just find new ways to lose their money to us plain and simple traders...Ya, GOTTA love this game.....
The only things i see as random are coin flips and Bush's escape plan for leaving the country he invaded.......:eek:
hello hermit,
what testing can you point to that shows TA as being something that works?
VN and the team apply the scientific method in an exacting fashion to the market, testing massive amounts of data, across lengthy time frames, using the latest and best programs--- like it or not, the results speak for themselves.
surfer
excellent post, odd.
surfer
You're posts have a predictable part and a noise part ...Quote from bighog:
a 3 dimensional look at things......SPARE ME PLEASE!!!!!!
WHY not 4 or 5? Traders keep coming up with new ways to blow themselves up, just like Victor did.
They just find new ways to lose their money to us plain and simple traders...Ya, GOTTA love this game.....
The only things i see as random are coin flips and Bush's escape plan for leaving the country he invaded.......:eek:
(interestingly enough it's the same part: Bush-bashing = predictable noise)
You rely here on the prediction that if you buy at good prices then stocks will go up. This assumes they don't behave randomly.
I don't think that the cited experiment proves that TA doesn't work. It sounds like all those medical studies that we find daily in the news, and you can't (and shouldn't) rely on their conclusions.
David Hume: "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion."
I am surprized that this thread is still going on, because it has jumped the shark so long time ago. Anyway, because I am trying to be helpful, here is a little info for those who think the markets are unpredictable:
http://www.cassadaga.com/history/
"Known as âThe Psychic Center of the Worldâ, Cassadaga,FL continues today as the premiere psychic community and is home to some of Americaâs finest psychics."
A 1/2 hour reading cost only $45-65 and that is cheaper than many of the online newsletters. If you are not in the neighbourhood, readings via telephone is also possible....
Now, can we finally put to rest this thread?
http://www.cassadaga.com/history/
"Known as âThe Psychic Center of the Worldâ, Cassadaga,FL continues today as the premiere psychic community and is home to some of Americaâs finest psychics."
A 1/2 hour reading cost only $45-65 and that is cheaper than many of the online newsletters. If you are not in the neighbourhood, readings via telephone is also possible....
Now, can we finally put to rest this thread?
In Vic's corner you have a statistician with a bull personality. From my reading of Niederhoffer's writings it is very evident that he sees no evidence of reliable recurrence of black-swans. Vic does a lot of writing premium on indexes, specifically puts because he doesn't think the market is going to plunge.
Therefore, Niederhoffer would be correct 99% of the time. However, all the gains that Vic built up prior to 1997 were wiped-out because he was still investing the entire portfolio with the same bull attitude and the market behaved outside of its normal "99% of the time" behavior.
The reason visual ta "can" work SOMETIMES, is that if enough people use it at the same time they will all derive similar conclusions about future market directions. It becomes self-fulfilling prophecy per-say.
BTW, I am just using 99% as an example, not as an actual probablity...
Therefore, Niederhoffer would be correct 99% of the time. However, all the gains that Vic built up prior to 1997 were wiped-out because he was still investing the entire portfolio with the same bull attitude and the market behaved outside of its normal "99% of the time" behavior.
The reason visual ta "can" work SOMETIMES, is that if enough people use it at the same time they will all derive similar conclusions about future market directions. It becomes self-fulfilling prophecy per-say.
BTW, I am just using 99% as an example, not as an actual probablity...
I have read that article and looked around because I was curious about how empirica has performed...didn't find anything. My interpretation of Empirica is that institutions find it more of an insurance pool than an actual hedge fund. As much as Vic blew up, I don't think Taleb is making money for anyone other than Empirica...
I could be wrong and would love to see otherwise, but I wasn't able to find info otherwise; I interpret that as not being profitable for investors...
I could be wrong and would love to see otherwise, but I wasn't able to find info otherwise; I interpret that as not being profitable for investors...