The Implications Of Schindler and VN

Are we talking about systems independent of edge?

And Nitro I'm not talking about arb/spreading/programs ect. Certainly there's computing/speed edges to sniff those out. I'm sticking with nut and bolts technical indicators.
Quote from nitro:

Aaron is a genuinely nice guy.


Your reasoning by analogy, which while a good form of thought in discovering new ideas, will lead you to erroneous conclusions if used as a form of deductive reasoning.

I can tell you unequivocally that there are automated systems that work. Problem is, there is nothing in it for me to prove it to you. Nothing good ever comes from bragging.


Your universe of what you believe to be viable automated systems, by even mentioning these references, shows that you don't understand where to even start looking for viable automated systems.


There are right ways to sell premium and wrong ways. You also keep alluding to how smart they are. Isaac Newton, whom perhaps has never had an intellectual equal on this planet, failed trading.


See above.

nitro
More...
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Are we talking about systems independent of edge?

And Nitro I'm not talking about arb/spreading/programs ect. Certainly there's computing/speed edges to sniff those out. I'm sticking with nut and bolts technical indicators.
More...

I really do not think two individual's performance tell us anything about technical analysis. If I mentioned two traders who made money for year using it, likewise would not prove much. The tools people use are meaningless. It all comes down to how the traders or fund managers use them and manage their risk. We all could reveal the tools we use and we all still would not trade the same way.
 
Quote from optioncoach:

I really do not think two individual's performance tell us anything about technical analysis. If I mentioned two traders who made money for year using it, likewise would not prove much. The tools people use are meaningless. It all comes down to how the traders or fund managers use them and manage their risk. We all could reveal the tools we use and we all still would not trade the same way.
More...


Can you name a fund that's enjoyed continued low drawdown success while reliant on indicators? I honestly can't.
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Can you name a fund that's enjoyed continued low drawdown success while reliant on indicators? I honestly can't.
More...

Well first off what you can and cannot do is irrelevant lol.

Also any fund over time is going to have drawdowns no matter what "system" they use as that is the nature of the markets.

I guarantee you everyone of the market wizards who has traded since the first books have had drawdowns. the key for them is the drawdowns never blew out their funds or assets. Fighters get hit, Cy Young picthers give up home runs/lose, poker players have bad beats, etc.. Even the best traders using whatever system has drawdowns, impossible to avoid. It is no reflection on whether they use fundamental or technical indicators cause they are just tools that you and I and everyone else will use differently.

Honestly, what approach they use matters not. The tools matter not at all. What 2 people in the world do matters even less.

Famous old saying: "An example is not a proof"
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

While one can't help but revel in Vic's demise, if Aaron's story is true the feeling is quite the opposite.
More...
Can you really compare Vic's situation with Aaron's? Vic could have had a very successful business based on the management fees. He collected those fees up until the time the fund was liquidated. Aaron's fund was too small (IMHO) to survive on management fees alone. Also Aaron probably had more of his net worth invested in the fund.

Vic could blow out his account and the personal financial impact is limited. Most of the risk was carried by the investors. Very different from Aaron.

Vic was betting with the 'house money' and Aaron was betting his own money. It seems to me that this will factor into any comparison of risk. What do you think?

Thank you.
 
No less than 4 Wizards have blown out either a fund or themselves since Schwager's books were published.

Quote from optioncoach:

Well first off what you can and cannot do is irrelevant lol.

Also any fund over time is going to have drawdowns no matter what "system" they use as that is the nature of the markets.

I guarantee you everyone of the market wizards who has traded since the first books have had drawdowns. the key for them is the drawdowns never blew out their funds or assets. Fighters get hit, Cy Young picthers give up home runs/lose, poker players have bad beats, etc.. Even the best traders using whatever system has drawdowns, impossible to avoid. It is no reflection on whether they use fundamental or technical indicators cause they are just tools that you and I and everyone else will use differently.

Honestly, what approach they use matters not. The tools matter not at all. What 2 people in the world do matters even less.

Famous old saying: "An example is not a proof"
More...
 
Ah,

Well, I have never seen an automated system that makes money looking at just indicators. However, it would not surprise me one bit if "one" existed. [I emphasize the word one because a system of systems of indicators seems to have been documented to work. See Crabel.]

One thing I have learned from the almost 10 years of searching for a viable auto system is just how hard it is to do it right, and how many intangibles have to be in place even when you have and edge in your model.

nitro
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Are we talking about systems independent of edge?

And Nitro I'm not talking about arb/spreading/programs ect. Certainly there's computing/speed edges to sniff those out. I'm sticking with nut and bolts technical indicators.
More...
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

No less than 4 Wizards have blown out either a fund or themselves since Schwager's books were published.
More...

and that proves....

Plenty of people making and losing money using technical indicators, fundamental analysis, astrology, black box systems..

These are just tools. Who does or does not blow up says nothing of the tools but the person using it. I am giving you logical statements and you are giving me random example as they establish a proof. People have drawdowns, funds blow up. If risk management was adhered to, drawdowns would just be that, drawdowns, not blow outs.

What any individual does or does not do is not proof of a generalization. Mark Fischer did very well trading using technical indicators. Does it mean anything for you and me? Sadly nothing at all.

Your original question is the implications of Vic and Schindler. No significant implications to speak of in my opinion as these are two individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top