It is very offensive to hear someone ask why research that works makes any difference. I've seen a lot of strategies, and unless you're going long only dip buying is your only option. However, if you have models that work when the market's moving up or down then you have to see value in following those trading patterns. There is nothing wrong with using software like MultiCharts or tradestation into formulating investment strategies for long or short term capital investing.
Price Physics is the most well articulated theory of market movement, second to none. Anyone who reads it should see how natural oscillations in the market can be predicted based on support and resistance. I've tried to incorporate the same ideas into my pairs models.
Reading and writing don't have any bearing on financial success. Doing, discovering ways to predict the market's move are at the heart of the financial industry, and I don't trust anybody else to have the necessary steps in place to accurately with reasonable win percentages trade the market.
As far as Price Physics goes there isn't a more well written theory of market movement. Far from the Scholes-Merton mode of divining implied volatility from the current price that nearly always leaves you with the same price, these models are for short term market making only, and having theories to anticipate moves is necessary.
I think Pairs Trading especially is very important to trading leveraged ETF's but not so much for unleveraged products. Price Physics is the theory that I've built my CTA around, and with models that have $25 million going to more than $1 billion in less than 4 years, there is no doubt in my mind how valuable those strategies are. If you don't understand what trading is, which is what you are saying whenever you debate with someone who has these kinds of models, then you shouldn't ask why you think it would work you should ask how does it work? The why part usually leads nowhere because there isn't any difference when you go to discuss trading strategies if you're just going to ask why. Asking how gets the conversation so much further than why, when why is self-explanatory if you know the how. How to build trading models is nice, but not as fun unless the strategy is very robust.
Price Physics is the most well articulated theory of market movement, second to none. Anyone who reads it should see how natural oscillations in the market can be predicted based on support and resistance. I've tried to incorporate the same ideas into my pairs models.
Reading and writing don't have any bearing on financial success. Doing, discovering ways to predict the market's move are at the heart of the financial industry, and I don't trust anybody else to have the necessary steps in place to accurately with reasonable win percentages trade the market.
As far as Price Physics goes there isn't a more well written theory of market movement. Far from the Scholes-Merton mode of divining implied volatility from the current price that nearly always leaves you with the same price, these models are for short term market making only, and having theories to anticipate moves is necessary.
I think Pairs Trading especially is very important to trading leveraged ETF's but not so much for unleveraged products. Price Physics is the theory that I've built my CTA around, and with models that have $25 million going to more than $1 billion in less than 4 years, there is no doubt in my mind how valuable those strategies are. If you don't understand what trading is, which is what you are saying whenever you debate with someone who has these kinds of models, then you shouldn't ask why you think it would work you should ask how does it work? The why part usually leads nowhere because there isn't any difference when you go to discuss trading strategies if you're just going to ask why. Asking how gets the conversation so much further than why, when why is self-explanatory if you know the how. How to build trading models is nice, but not as fun unless the strategy is very robust.
