ever hear of google? it has a little feature that allows one to be alerted whenever their topic of interest is mentioned anywhere on the web. this is one way people find out what is said.
please, there is no conspiracy!
The Best TA Book Ever Published!!
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
- Status
ever hear of google? it has a little feature that allows one to be alerted whenever their topic of interest is mentioned anywhere on the web. this is one way people find out what is said.
please, there is no conspiracy!
Hey, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but, actually, you can easily see that David Aronson's registration and first post here go back 7 months, to March 30th. (Go ahead, read that first post, for its contents.) No coincidence with this week-old thread. End of conspiracy theory.
Maybe he visits ET regularly without posting much, as so many do. Or maybe he simply noticed all that sudden ET-originating traffic to his free, small website, caused by a link I posted near the beginning of this thread on Oct. 25.
Also, by request, he posted the table of contents above, two days ago -- before the book is officially released. (Amazon doesn't have the table of contents listed.) Practically speaking, very few people could have done that. Surf being one of them, but you are not suggesting that he is, in fact, Surf, planning an elaborate -- the first post contents, again -- hoax 7 months in advance, are you?
True, online, things are often not as they seem, but I think any identity doubts in this case can be laid to rest safely.
First, I know it seems strange, but I just happened to notice the thread on my book. It was pure random luck, believe it or not. At first I had thought that surfer was one of about 7 folks who got early copes to review for various websites. But when I checked with a few to see if they were market surfer, none were. So there as no prior connection with Market surfer, though I am grateful for saying what he did say.
The stance I take in the book against subjective methods, is simply the stance taken in all science, that the only meaningful claims (hypotheses) are those that admit to testing.... that is they are open to being proven wrong with evidence. Subjective methods rely on the private interpretations of each user. Thus they can not be back-tested and there is no possibility of objective evidence that might contradict the claim. In effect subjective methods make no claim that is sufficiently clear to be tested. So I reject them on grounds of meaninglessness. Nothing new about this, just plain old philosophy of science.
There are many good stat packages out there for testing one rule or system. But as soon as you engage in data mining, the testing of many rules (systems) and selecting a best performing one, standard statistical tests will not work. That's why I describe two new tests that will permit the statistical significance of a data mined system to be evaluated.
Hope this answers the various posed questions.
David Aronson
The stance I take in the book against subjective methods, is simply the stance taken in all science, that the only meaningful claims (hypotheses) are those that admit to testing.... that is they are open to being proven wrong with evidence. Subjective methods rely on the private interpretations of each user. Thus they can not be back-tested and there is no possibility of objective evidence that might contradict the claim. In effect subjective methods make no claim that is sufficiently clear to be tested. So I reject them on grounds of meaninglessness. Nothing new about this, just plain old philosophy of science.
There are many good stat packages out there for testing one rule or system. But as soon as you engage in data mining, the testing of many rules (systems) and selecting a best performing one, standard statistical tests will not work. That's why I describe two new tests that will permit the statistical significance of a data mined system to be evaluated.
Hope this answers the various posed questions.
David Aronson
I hope that you are not referring to me here, because I don't think it is appropriate to get personal about someone's beliefs. How people defend or support their beliefs in a public debate is a different matter.
As it happens, I also think that most of what passes for TA is BS. How you trade or what you believe is of no consequence to me. However, what troubles me from time to time is your apparent inability to engage in meaningful dialogue. You seem to labor under the impression that mere repetition is a substitute for debate. When someone questions your rationale in a detailed manner, you either simply repeat yourself like an answering machine or you choose to ignore the question. Your approach is disingenuous. I think you often intentionally evoke ire and then stand back and play the innocent. Don't believe me? Just review some of your conduct in the trend following thread. Let me repeat that I don't care what your beliefs are, but if you are going to initiate debate in a public forum then make an effort to actually do so.
Thanks for posting the Table of Contents David -- can't wait to read the book. You should read the System Development by acrary thread; that is probably the best thread on ET that describes a rigorous approach to systems trading with a statistical bent.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
The issue centered more on the fact that it was Surf who brought up the "best TA book ever" statement.
I believe he has bought himself much antagonism by many members of this board on his own account and he is the only one to blame. It is unfortunate since I originally had a much better impression of him. (Blatant showings of) Lack of maturity and consistent profits in this business don't mix, imo.
I also believe Thunderdog's assessment of Surf's ET engagement style was very accurate.
The issue centered more on the fact that it was Surf who brought up the "best TA book ever" statement.
I believe he has bought himself much antagonism by many members of this board on his own account and he is the only one to blame. It is unfortunate since I originally had a much better impression of him. (Blatant showings of) Lack of maturity and consistent profits in this business don't mix, imo.
I also believe Thunderdog's assessment of Surf's ET engagement style was very accurate.
Quote from late apex:
Hey, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but, actually, you can easily see that David Aronson's registration and first post here go back 7 months, to March 30th. (Go ahead, read that first post, for its contents.) No coincidence with this week-old thread. End of conspiracy theory.
Maybe he visits ET regularly without posting much, as so many do. Or maybe he simply noticed all that sudden ET-originating traffic to his free, small website, caused by a link I posted near the beginning of this thread on Oct. 25.
Also, by request, he posted the table of contents above, two days ago -- before the book is officially released. (Amazon doesn't have the table of contents listed.) Practically speaking, very few people could have done that. Surf being one of them, but you are not suggesting that he is, in fact, Surf, planning an elaborate -- the first post contents, again -- hoax 7 months in advance, are you?
True, online, things are often not as they seem, but I think any identity doubts in this case can be laid to rest safely.
David,
To state that a method is untestable (at this point in time or with the tools currently available) is pure science.
To state that something you can't test is:
subjective
meaningless
worse than wrong
is religion not science.
A scientist doesn't reject god (because of science); but he might reject bad science in some attempts to justify creationism. His inability to test god doesn't make god meaningless or worse than wrong.
Today's theories may not be tomorrows. A scientist accepts that science improves over time as measurement tools and theories improve. A religious bigot rejects that which does not fit his framework.
When I say a TA approach is untestable it is not a function of the testing method but rather of the TA approach. Untestable, in science in general or EBTA in particular, simply means that the approach does not make specific testable claims. Thus any TA approach that is not sufficiently well defined that that it would be possible to reduce to a back-testable algorithm means that the approach has not made explicit all application issues. Or said differently, it requires some subjective interpretation on the part of the user of the approach ( e.g. Gann Lines, classic chart patterns, etc.). With respect to a method like Elliot, it has now been reduced to a testable method, at least according to Robert Precter. This is discussed in his book Socionomics Chapter 4, where the describes the EWAVES program. So, whereas Elliot Wave Theory had been an untestable subjective method, there is now, according to Precter, a version that is objective, meaningful, testable.... The results of these test have not yet been made public. But when they are we will be in a position to judge the value of this particular version of EWT. Prior to this time, its value had to be taken on faith.
David Aronson
David Aronson
LOL, you are so full of it. Pavlov would have loved you as a subject. You're a last word kind of guy, so we eagerly await your lengthy response about nothing. Will you exercise your discipline and place me on Ignore, or can I count on you again, Mr. Troll Bait?
The fact is Thunderdog -- you don't care whether or not you crap on anyone's thread. And you failed the test yet again.
- Status