The best traders in ET

[kinggyppo]

Quote from actionzip54:

Wow guys, I mean I went to college and I can tell you that TA does not work. Several of my Econ profs told me to stay away from the stuff at that it is pure hog wash made up by a bunch of charlatans trying to sell systems to people who think they can beat the market for more than 8% a year.

On the contrary, no one said anything about price drivers and I know surf used to work for some hedge funds. I think that lends a lot of credibility to it.

his mentor had an impossible to beat martingale strategy, till the spuz broke 1100, curiously the Chicago boys were blamed, sadly the law suit was lost, I overheard someone in the pits say, fuck him he wears orange pants, life is weird.

 

[GloriaBrown]

Quote from actionzip54:

Wow guys, I mean I went to college and I can tell you that TA does not work. Several of my Econ profs told me to stay away from the stuff at that it is pure hog wash made up by a bunch of charlatans trying to sell systems to people who think they can beat the market for more than 8% a year.

On the contrary, no one said anything about price drivers and I know surf used to work for some hedge funds. I think that lends a lot of credibility to it.

The point is you need to do the backtest with in simple, out of simple, and math stats prove to see if it has any prediction power. Not every TA rule is stupid, but not all TA works.

 

[GloriaBrown]

Quote from GloriaBrown:

The point is you need to do the backtest with in simple, out of simple, and math stats prove to see if it has any prediction power. Not every TA rule is stupid, but not all TA works.

This method to find out if any TA rule is golden or just a joke only works for possible objectively define in a programming language kind, any subjective way is not possible to be tested and I can just say it will be always a myth.

 

[Bob111]

i didn't read 50 pages...op-define best. fast money or slow but steady?

 

[tobbe]

Quote from GloriaBrown:

The point is you need to do the backtest with in simple, out of simple, and math stats prove to see if it has any prediction power. Not every TA rule is stupid, but not all TA works.

Out of simple backtesting is complicated. The result is probably not a sample to count with.

 

[GloriaBrown]

Quote from tobbe:

Out of simple backtesting is complicated. The result is probably not a sample to count with.

out of simple is real testing which is the best, but we may lose our time if we keep using day after day to do out of simple instead of using part of historical data to do out of simple test.

 

[CalVolibrator]

can you re-read what you wrote? You sound more retarded even than JH at his best hours. My God, can someone please reach a gun to me to shoot myself?

Seriously, it cannot be me who is the imbecile here...No wonder this website has been in the same hands for more than a decade, who would want to pay anything for this collection of utter crap!!!

Quote from GloriaBrown:

The point is you need to do the backtest with in simple, out of simple, and math stats prove to see if it has any prediction power. Not every TA rule is stupid, but not all TA works.

 

[GloriaBrown]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

can you re-read what you wrote? You sound more retarded even than JH at his best hours. My God, can someone please reach a gun to me to shoot myself?

Seriously, it cannot be me who is the imbecile here...No wonder this website has been in the same hands for more than a decade, who would want to pay anything for this collection of utter crap!!!

Welcome to explain your argument with rational reasons instead of just talking without any meaningful words.

 

[CalVolibrator]

ok, here you go: its "in-sample", and "out-of-sample" for starters. Then both, "in-sample" and "out-of-sample" tests are equally important and have their places in statistical testing. It's not that that one is "real" and the other is not, as you claimed. Further it is not "prediction power" but "predictive power". If you knew the smallest thing about quantitative techniques or statistical testing then you would at least know the basic terminology. It does not matter whether your mother tongue is Greek, Hebrew, Korean, or English.

You clearly show that you do not have the slightest inkling of what you are talking about. In most all cases it is better to shut up than speak about things you know nothing about and look stupid.

Does that make it clearer rather than using meaningless words?

Quote from GloriaBrown:

Welcome to explain your argument with rational reasons instead of just talking without any meaningful words.

 

[GloriaBrown]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

ok, here you go: its "in-sample", and "out-of-sample" for starters. Then both, "in-sample" and "out-of-sample" tests are equally important and have their places in statistical testing. It's not that that one is "real" and the other is not, as you claimed. Further it is not "prediction power" but "predictive power". If you knew the smallest thing about quantitative techniques or statistical testing then you would at least know the basic terminology. It does not matter whether your mother tongue is Greek, Hebrew, Korean, or English.

You clearly show that you do not have the slightest inkling of what you are talking about. In most all cases it is better to shut up than speak about things you know nothing about and look stupid.

Does that make it clearer rather than using meaningless words?

First of all my meaning is much more deep than what you said, and my point was TA can be tested to know it would be useful or not, while you sound not challenging TA should all be not useful. You seem like try to have conflict of your own point.