Surfer Alerts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from marketsurfer:

As someone on Wiley's book reviewer list, I have hundreds of trading books, even those you mention-- Pring is mcgraw hill, I can seem to locate the other one right now, but am pretty sure I have it

, they are basically just rehashes... May I suggest,

Evidence Based Technical Analysis by David Aronson,
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...6&sig=NLnY7IBe8GrlWBMcVQmeIES25J8&redir_esc=y
More...

Aronson has a newer book out, called "Statistically Sound Machine Learning for Algorithmic Trading ..."

Have you read it? I saw amazon has it for $123.45. But I don't feel paying that amount, if it's as basic as the "Evidence Based...", or if it's just another TA book. At first glance it looks like a push to sell his TSSB system. He seems to be doing some interesting research though.

Anyone read the book??
 
Quote from HopelessTrader:

Aronson has a newer book out, called "Statistically Sound Machine Learning for Algorithmic Trading ..."

Have you read it? I saw amazon has it for $123.45. But I don't feel paying that amount, if it's as basic as the "Evidence Based...", or if it's just another TA book. At first glance it looks like a push to sell his TSSB system. He seems to be doing some interesting research though.

Anyone read the book??
More...

No, I haven't read it. I havent' spoken with Aronson for several years now--- good to see he is still producing solid material but its not on his website

http://www.evidencebasedta.com/aboutaronson.html

surf
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

As someone on Wiley's book reviewer list, I have hundreds of trading books, even those you mention-- Pring is mcgraw hill, I can seem to locate the other one right now, but am pretty sure I have it

, they are basically just rehashes... May I suggest,

Evidence Based Technical Analysis by David Aronson,
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...6&sig=NLnY7IBe8GrlWBMcVQmeIES25J8&redir_esc=y

Practical Speculation by Vic Niederhoffer

How markets really work by Larry Connors


If you like buying break outs, Connors extensive research on the topic will quickly change your mind about that strategy and many others.

Let me know what you think after you read them. thanks!

surf
More...

I have read both of Niederhoffer's books, and I'm also familiar with the concept Aronson is peddling though I haven't read his book. I researched enough on the ideas of Malkiel to decide I would not waste my time and money on his book. I stopped buying breakouts ages ago, decidedly not a masochist.

I have no argument with VNs thinking that chart patterns should be statistically proven to work but aren't. My biggest beef with Brooks is he bandies about his darned H1 to H4, which he supposedly trades, but does not offer any indication of what percentage of the time any of those entries can be expected to work; just his record, not every H1 that ever occurred. I have stats for all my trades, every single one from the very first, I would expect no less from a pro like him, if he is in fact one.

If I would write the long but I'm sure entertaining story of why I'm not a day trader, you might see that I'm actually sitting on your side of the table as far as stats and numbers go. Where we differ is you are about as open minded as the Ayatollahs of Iran, whilst I am happy to accept that there are many ways to skin a cat.

My point is, it does not matter what your trading pedigree happens to be, I hardly think you are qualified to redefine what the industry accepts to be TA. The fact that you may have read hundreds of books is irrelevant. The fact that you believe TA should be statistically validated does not redefine what TA is.
 
Quote from justrading:

I have read both of Niederhoffer's books, and I'm also familiar with the concept Aronson is peddling though I haven't read his book. I researched enough on the ideas of Malkiel to decide I would not waste my time and money on his book. I stopped buying breakouts ages ago, decidedly not a masochist.

I have no argument with VNs thinking that chart patterns should be statistically proven to work but aren't. My biggest beef with Brooks is he bandies about his darned H1 to H4, which he supposedly trades, but does not offer any indication of what percentage of the time any of those entries can be expected to work; just his record, not every H1 that ever occurred. I have stats for all my trades, every single one from the very first, I would expect no less from a pro like him, if he is in fact one.

If I would write the long but I'm sure entertaining story of why I'm not a day trader, you might see that I'm actually sitting on your side of the table as far as stats and numbers go. Where we differ is you are about as open minded as the Ayatollahs of Iran, whilst I am happy to accept that there are many ways to skin a cat.

My point is, it does not matter what your trading pedigree happens to be, I hardly think you are qualified to redefine what the industry accepts to be TA. The fact that you may have read hundreds of books is irrelevant. The fact that you believe TA should be statistically validated does not redefine what TA is.
More...

Sounds like we agree way more than disagree. Thanks for the clarification. surf
 
Surfers and surfettes,

we remain positive in our short positions while the market churns attracting all possible capital prior to a potentially violent smackdown. we remain short and highly confident of the projections. thanks, surf
 
TA cannot be statistically validated unless you combine it with trade management strategy. For example, a useful indicator will probably fail in the large majority of cases but catch a huge move when it works. This means you need logic for managing stops.

In fact this combination of TA and trade management is systematic trend following - which <i>can</i> be statistically validated.
 
Quote from Ash1972:

T

In fact this combination of TA and trade management is systematic trend following - which <i>can</i> be statistically validated.
More...

Validated to work or not work? I venture to say that random entries combined with trade management across multiple instruments would produce the same results as using TA rather than random entries.
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

Validated to work or not work? I venture to say that random entries combined with trade management across multiple instruments would produce the same results as using TA rather than random entries.
More...

Demonstration for you of TA magic at work.

Since you have a position in the Dow I will use that as instument since I got a super high probability setup.

If we get 2 3-Minutes closes above todays pit HOD I will go long full leverage stop at todays pit LOD.

Short if opposite but on todays LOD.

Exit at 4 PM EST unless I say otherwise during the market day.
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

....I venture to say that random entries combined with trade management across multiple instruments would produce the same results as using TA rather than random entries.
More...

Once again you are talking absolute nonsense, there is an endless stream of nonsense which comes from your 'wisdom' imparted on ET.

The only way your statement is accurate is if the guy trading and proving TA was you.

Many years ago on another forum someone (a prominent long standing member) made that statement so I set up to prove his assumption was false and so using a basket of stocks on the ASX I clearly proved using TA beat his random entries. If I recall it went on for 3 months, very labour intensive exercise, hence one reason i don't get into pissing exercises re trading anylonger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top