If prices are random, does that mean that prices have no relationship to the balance of supply and demand?
Quote from toe:
Twiga posted this link on WLD forum recently about Jim Simons President Renaissance Technologies, where Jim beleives that the advantage of having scientists create trading systems is that they are less likely to be fooled by randomness.
http://www.turtletrader.com/trader-simons.html
I agree that no sequence of events is truely random. But there are some aspects of a series that can make the "key" very hard to detect. Such as the amount and accuracy of available data.
But the toughest aspect in trading system design are those of multiple keys, and constantly changing keys. Adding these together in decent measure can get you pretty close to true randomness, in fact it can be a tougher combination to deal with than true randomness because periods of non-randomness can conspire to have us think we have found rules that are stable when they are probably fleeting.
Quote from dan05:
Hi Toe,
If you haven done so I would recomend
Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets (Paperback) Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Regards,
Quote from dan05:
Check this chart. This is a prediction of the Russell2000 from today.
The prediction was executed at 11:45, where the black and red line splits. The black line was the prediction, the red line, what finally happened.
Quote from HoundDogOne:
The idea of "scientists" building trading systems is misguided...
That's like geting "scientists" to coach an NBA basketball team.
. Quote from science_trader:
Some people here should learn what "random" means...
It looks like a very bad prediction... I'm sorry
Quote from dan05:
Hi Science Trader.
Why do you state is a bad prediction ? The system was able to make u$s 800 with that prediction.
I tend to quantify how good or bad is a prediction by measuring the Root Mean Square Error of the prediction path and the market.
Do you use any other measurement that you would like to share with us that will give hard numbers to support your statement?
Thanks.
Quote from ktmexc20:
Bull dinkies....
From a purely systematic point of view, NO knowledge of 'trading' is at all required to be an extremely efficient (most profitable), trader. It's all in the data and how knowledgeable one is to extrapolate reasoning purely from that data source.
Quote from HoundDogOne:
As an experienced quant...
And as someone who has made 300K-400K trades...
I completely 100% disagree with you.
Once you develop a workable strategy that takes advantage of some market inefficiency...
What makes it successful is NOT sticking to it with iron discipline...
But having the long trading experience to DEVIATE from it the right 50% of the time...
And avoid the kind of disastrous pitfalls that befall newbies and academics.
As a specific example...
I follow several hundred NYSE stocks...
And am presented every day with perhaps 500 trading opportunities by my computers...
Of which I reject about 300...
Leaving me with 200 trades that ** choose ** to execute.
If I did all 500 trades...
And did not use my vast experience to avoid pitfalls...
I would be only marginally profitable and out of business long ago...
As opposed to very profitable.
Anybody rigidly sticking to mechanical strategies is doomed to mediocrity at best.
I idea that the input of an experience pro trader is of little value...
Is completely illogical...
And could only be held by someone with very limited trading experience.