If stock price movement is some kind of stationary process , trading is much easier for everyone. But it is impossible for everyone to be a winner. Most are losers. If the stock prices are not any kind of stationary data, how much things like TAs and highly hyped ML skills are really useful and effective in trading? Trading is a myth not a science. Winners are mostly created by legal and/or illegal privileged access to machines, information or techniques (short-lived if open to public). Just my random thought (or repeat of others said).
stock price is not stationary data
- Thread starter aqtrader
- Start date
Sorry but I disagree that most in the stock market are losers - in a bear of flat market that would be true. In a strong bull market the vast majority of the public is making profits. Most employees have a portion of their paycheck deposited into a 401K long on ETFs or funds that track the stock indexes- with years of averaging in many are making a killing - at least for now until the next bear market comes along.
Aside from my regular trading, I have a portion of my capital into an account that captures larger trending move on the stock indexes using a simple moving average strategy. There is nothing worse for a trader working their tails off only to be beat by the buy and hold crowd in a bull market.
Aside from my regular trading, I have a portion of my capital into an account that captures larger trending move on the stock indexes using a simple moving average strategy. There is nothing worse for a trader working their tails off only to be beat by the buy and hold crowd in a bull market.
Last edited:
So what are you saying? The market is rigged? Come on.... the only way it's rigged is that when you trade a lot, you pay a lot of fees... which would be one of the reasons a lot of people lose.
And of course not everyone can be a winner, although trickled down it certainly is not a zero-sum game.
First thing to do IMO, is stop using the term winners and losers... that's used in gambling and you will end up trading like it is gambling. You should look at trading as work... you make a profit or loss...
And of course not everyone can be a winner, although trickled down it certainly is not a zero-sum game.
First thing to do IMO, is stop using the term winners and losers... that's used in gambling and you will end up trading like it is gambling. You should look at trading as work... you make a profit or loss...
%%
I agree.
I thought i spotted a random pattern only once. My best friend[@ that time] shopping , not much logic in all her shopping zag- zags. But on further study, she simply loved to shop, more than move in a logical pattern-NOT random @ all LOL
I proved the market was not random the first 12 months i traded/daytraded stock$ , i did much, much, much worse than random. The market can be difficult or sometimes easy, not random.Actually, simple math may suggest a 10 period moving average would be 5 times better than 50 day ma ; but the 50 seems more helpful, less slippage commissions, less noise, less false moves.................................................. NOT a prediction.
Discretionary institutional traders barely use any TA beyond RSI and moving averages. On the short term TA is useful for helping identify where weak traders put their stops. That applies to all asset classes, regardless of if stationary processes or not.
%%
RSI is one of the reasons why some hate TA; but MODERN TRADER magazine put it above price @ top an oil chart, not that i believe all i read.I told one doctor ,relative strength is a valid concept ; you can maybe find a better way to use it than that indicator. Good points on moving averages -may help,Pangan..................................................................................