Trend Following Research
- Thread starter Trend Following
- Start date
Trend Following
Sponsor
Don't be such a weenie. Here is the quote:
Prove it wrong. You got to read his words. Pretty straightforward. Don't forget the last sentence.
Prove it wrong:
First he says trends can only exist in the past, then he says trends have to defined. This is a contradiction, just as surf has already pointed out. The weenie would be the guy who remains willfully ignorant of the evidence after having his face rubbed in it. Seykota is talking out of his ass in some attempt at Eastern mysticism and "wisdom". His word salad impresses only the gullible.
Trend Following
Sponsor
Do you really think you are just condemning Seykota and I? Why don't you explain trend following to me? Or better yet go ahead and tell me this preferred strategy of yours? That might help everyone to see why there is an impasse.
You buy a security because you expect the price to rise. In other words, you expect an uptrend. You sell a security because you expect the price to fall. In other words, you expect a downtrend. This is called trend following when you think the price is currently in a good trend and you're trying to ride it for profit. It's called trend fading or range trading or RTM or who knows what else when you're trying to predict the next trend, i.e., when you're trying to pick tops and bottoms. As far as my strategy, it's trend following, but the details are nothing you'd read about in a book or hear at a seminar.
And since all known trend following strategies depend on the existence of a current trend (nonexistent according to you and Seykota), I'd love to hear your explanation of trend following, Trend Following.
Trend Following
Sponsor
You are saying this is what reactive systematic trend followers do?
They predict "trends"?
How is that done exactly?
Trend followers buy a security because it is rising, not cause they expect it to rise. No small distinction.
Kinda like the secret sauce they glop on a Big Mac?
You're being deliberately obtuse. I already said the same thing you did in different words. Trend followers expect the price to (continue to) rise because it was already rising. BTW how can the price be rising when, according to you and Seykota, there's no such thing as a current trend? Are you familiar with the word "contradiction"?
There's no point in continuing this discussion. You've been exposed as a poser and someone who refuses to answer direct questions. Goodbye.
kut2k2, I think you're a very smart guy. But I think you might be missing the point here. Mike Covel and I have had our many differences, but he is right on this one. And, in any case, he was merely quoting Ed Seykota, who very adroitly said, and Covel quoted him, as follows:
"When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions. With that in mind, we can proceed to examine ways to define, compute and use trends."
You cannot argue with this basic observation. I imagine that the "now" part elsewhere in his quote is more of a Zen thing for Mr Seykota, who is perhaps being somewhat pedantic by pointing out that the present is a single moment. A trend requires more than one observation, but there can be only one observation in a singular moment in time. I think the distinction is more a philosophical one than a practical one. In any event, it may actually serve to highlight the fact that our specific and operational definitions of trend are decidedly our own because we all look at the past differently and act upon our individual interpretations.
"When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions. With that in mind, we can proceed to examine ways to define, compute and use trends."
You cannot argue with this basic observation. I imagine that the "now" part elsewhere in his quote is more of a Zen thing for Mr Seykota, who is perhaps being somewhat pedantic by pointing out that the present is a single moment. A trend requires more than one observation, but there can be only one observation in a singular moment in time. I think the distinction is more a philosophical one than a practical one. In any event, it may actually serve to highlight the fact that our specific and operational definitions of trend are decidedly our own because we all look at the past differently and act upon our individual interpretations.
OK I see your point. But as I see it, the last two sentences of Seykota's quote are completely contradicted by what he said earlier. He can't say something needs to be defined after he has already set limits on the meaning of the word, establishing an implicit definition.
Seykota's failure to recognize the concept of instant trend is his own limitation, not anybody else's. Trend does exist in an instant, as does velocity. Clearly the man has either never passed a calculus class or has forgotten everything he was supposed to learn. He's fallen for Zeno's arrow "paradox", which is pretty sad.
Trend Following
Sponsor
Seykota's wisdom is clear and concise. You sound like you are tied in a knot with your choice of words. Do you not see that distinction at least?