trend following delusion shattered

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from ProfLogic:

Price and its created oscillations mean something entirely different to me than you because my environment is non-varying, yours is constantly in a state of flux.

Order flow imbalance, as you call it, IS the cause of the price movement and its created oscillations. I do not ADD to that structure I simple diminish the chaos from it by encapsulating it into a fixed, stable and readable environment and that is something you
More...


I prefer to use the objective definitions of words, although I have nothing against artistic sensibilities--- just believe its important that the progenitor and readers, of such, are aware of the flexible definitions used.

do you believe you can make money( phony, of course) from a randomly generated price series when superimposed onto your "non varying" environment?

regards,

surfer
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

I prefer to use the objective definitions of words, although I have nothing against artistic sensibilities--- just believe its important that the progenitor and readers, of such, are aware of the flexible definitions used.

do you believe you can make money( phony, of course) from a randomly generated price series when superimposed onto your "non varying" environment?

regards,

surfer
More...

I prefer objective definitions myself. Price, oscillations, environments, non-varying, movement, structure, chaos, encapsulating, stable, fixed and readable are all easily and objectively definable.

First, I'm not superimposing price onto anything. All I am doing is viewing price on a chart that is created using volume bars which are a non-varying way to see price movement and then using a single indicator to confirm the strength and weakness of that price movement from its real-time created oscillations. Nothing extraordinary . . . just consistently simple.

I not only believe I can make real money trading in this environment . . . I do.
 
This is from Ed Seykota's website, thought this was interesting given the discussion:

"All methods of defining trends compare various combinations of historical price points. All trends are historical, none are in the present. There is no way to determine the current trend, or even define what current trend might mean; we can only determine historical trends.

The only way to measure a now-trend (one entirely in the moment of now) would be to take two points, both in the now and compute their difference. Motion, velocity and trend do not exist in the now. They do not appear in snapshots. Trend does not exist in the now and the phrase, "the trend" has no inherent meaning. When we speak of trends, we are speaking, necessarily, from some or another view of history.

There is no such thing as a current trend. When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions. "
 
Quote from kinggyppo:

This is from Ed Seykota's website, thought this was interesting given the discussion:

.

There is no such thing as a current trend. When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions. "
More...

Pure horseshit.
 
Yep, poor old Seykota.

You know it seems to me that Ed's life "arc" is headed in the same direction as old Dr. Timothy Leary.

Does anyone remember the guru of LSD, who coined the phrase "tune in, turn on, drop out" in the 60's...Check out this bio on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

Ed and his "trading tribe" crap are strangely remininscent of Dr. Leary and his tragic life.

Steve
 
Altucher is a smart cookie, you gotta give him that.

But this "trend following is dead AS OF RIGHT NOW (today)" top has been called dozens of times.

Just browse your copy of Market Wizards and you see old school traders that could be Altuchers Daddy proclaiming the death of trend followers way back in 1988.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top