No one said you have to use real money. Trading calls only.
trend following delusion shattered
- Thread starter hank rollins
- Start date
- Status
what a joke ! you stated you want to use NICKEL's money, not yours. you need to apologize.
just make some calls, before the fact, prof--that is all. no need to convolute this request also.
_____________________________________________________
ok, here is a chart (a picture) if this is too complicated for you I will do it in real-time . . . with your money . . . and I keep all the profits. . . . I will assume all the risk. I loose, I cover loss.
This thread is really getting rediculous.
First, the claim was made. It is opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. The discussion started on an intellegent foot, with reputable people chiming in and actual literature being posted.
Then this rediculous set of rules for proof was introduced, which are designed in a manner which is in contradiction to most trend systems. The premise is idiotic from the start.
After that, we get to the proof stage. I posted a quick and easy study (in numerical form), and at least four others posted some sort of proof, with 5yrtrader posting results from a backtested system. All were rejected because they either did not follow the moronic prediction clause in the "rules" or were in a format which the claimant said he could not read.
Now, after a barrage of postings from trend traders, we have to post trades in real time to prove ourselves. I am willing to provide backtested results when I have time, but I definately don't see the use in posting every day for a considerable period of time on this thread just to prove two people wrong. I am not that insecure.
By the way, aren't most of the mathematical funds trading options and other non-outright positions? Two (perhaps more) of the largest disasters in management history were by options funds. These are heavily mathematical, but I just don't see how some mathhead full of formulas will last real long in beans. The trading landscape changes on an almost dialy basis.
First, the claim was made. It is opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. The discussion started on an intellegent foot, with reputable people chiming in and actual literature being posted.
Then this rediculous set of rules for proof was introduced, which are designed in a manner which is in contradiction to most trend systems. The premise is idiotic from the start.
After that, we get to the proof stage. I posted a quick and easy study (in numerical form), and at least four others posted some sort of proof, with 5yrtrader posting results from a backtested system. All were rejected because they either did not follow the moronic prediction clause in the "rules" or were in a format which the claimant said he could not read.
Now, after a barrage of postings from trend traders, we have to post trades in real time to prove ourselves. I am willing to provide backtested results when I have time, but I definately don't see the use in posting every day for a considerable period of time on this thread just to prove two people wrong. I am not that insecure.
By the way, aren't most of the mathematical funds trading options and other non-outright positions? Two (perhaps more) of the largest disasters in management history were by options funds. These are heavily mathematical, but I just don't see how some mathhead full of formulas will last real long in beans. The trading landscape changes on an almost dialy basis.
(Caution: To clear up some apparent confusion, the challenge question is posted again below. Anyone who is offended by this material should avert their eyes and scroll past it or direct their browser elsewhere.)
What is a reliable method that can be applied to past price action to forecast, before a prospective trade, a profitably large positive or negative number d such that (p1-p0)=>d, where p0 is the current market price and p1 will be a marketable price in the near future?
I'm looking for an answer to be posted here in plain text form. The proof of the answer is also to be posted here, as real time trading calls that specify on what basis the proposed method is being invoked.
What is a reliable method that can be applied to past price action to forecast, before a prospective trade, a profitably large positive or negative number d such that (p1-p0)=>d, where p0 is the current market price and p1 will be a marketable price in the near future?
I'm looking for an answer to be posted here in plain text form. The proof of the answer is also to be posted here, as real time trading calls that specify on what basis the proposed method is being invoked.
I'm glad you ask.
Here is the scene:
1. A person has not made an entry.
2. He does not make any attempt to figure out d.
3. He he sets up an entry bracket or a graphic entry or at a specific time he enters in the direction of the market price movement based upon his method of trading. For this example it is one of the methods that is ranked by successful performance for at least 15 years in a public list from 1 (top) to n (part way down the success list).
4. He continues to use his method and it opperates as usual.
5. He scales out/scales in/reverses/ exits upon upon signal and this completes the a phase of his trading after entry. What happens next is another lap in his trading approach. He may have made a profit or loss as we all see because his method does include losses along with the profits and they collectively are profitable.
Now, we have to look much closer at what is going on to get to the seminal factors affecting step three. This is where you are focused and suggesting that every method on earth has the component that you are suggesting (whether it be explicit, inherent, conscious or unconscious). Futher, there is a trend consideration since you are addressing this in a thread started by someone who has tested directly or by employing other qualified experts to come to the conclusion that price does not trend nor trend reliably nor in a manner that makes money for people.
There is the logical possibility, for you, that it is possible that if no way to find d comes along and all possibilities were considered (rollins did this already in a few months), that then the d thing is inoperable. So we have QED.
My view is that among all methods, the d thing is not there for purposes of designing, refining, oprating and considering systems of trading.
So that is what I need to make available to you for consideration.
Sketch out all possibilites of maket operating points. Call these nodes. The array is there and arranged by using a spatial arrangement determined by market characteristics. Any pertinent ones that a person wishes who has gained the right, through market understanding, to do the arranging. Others have the right to watch and learn.
So what is the question? Just one. There are two possible answers. But one doesn't work.
As a consequence of this determination, all successful methods use this result to operate over time. That is, you will notice that traders watch the market. When they observe that conditions have changed they take actions to continue to reach their singular goal of making money.
So changing conditions is the simple statement for describing that the market has changed from one point in the array to another.
Newton or Leibnitz both look at the array and see it in opposite ways. One puts all the pieces together; the other take the whole apart to get all the pieces. In any event they both like the idea of having as many pieces as possible.
As they acheive this goal they also see that there is simply a fineness control knob available to adjust. They can look at coarse peices, medium pieces and fine fine pieces.
as scientist once said upon looking things over: "That is the neatest thing I've ever seen". he added: "it sure kills random walk."
So now you know why monitoring is needed and d is trivial. Now you know why predicting is uneccessary and monitoring is necessary. Now you know why some of he super models and trading approaches are able to use risk analysis and money management quite effectively.
So what is the question? It is: " does the market operating point jump around all over the place or does it migrate through the mulitdimensional field of the market's total character?
Well it migrates and the way the path is chosen will really knock your socks off.
Isn't it funny how answering one question leads to another that is just as important. the region of the operating point is continuallly affected over time. Curl, divergence and gradient apply. So alternatives are continually blocked by "smooth' behavior and the path followed is dictated by the energy available to drive it. People energy.
The market "flows' and having it down well enough puts you in the groove. Its a sports memory thing whereby you play to win without "thinking". Obviously decision making is going on (hence thinking) but it is simply a natural living thinking process. There is not a d process going on at all it turns out.
the d stuff happens when people have not gotten to understand that the market is a collection of operating points that are used in a migratory manner. Random walk is a near miss simply because so many of the market's character dimansioned have been ommitted. Often you see articles on the market where the only dimension mentioned is price. I am talking about markets not just price. Markets are a people thing mostly.
That's entertainment!
Newton and Leibnitz aside, if your system signals entries at random with respect to whether or not price will move both in the right direction and to a certain minimum extent (see your number 2), all you're doing is gambling.
Once more, without obfuscation.
- Status