Trend Following-Trend Commandments

Quote from jsp326:

Maybe you, Hershey and the "price physics" mystics can post YOUR real-time, third-party audited performance summaries first.

Oh, wait...
More...

They wouldn't let me anyway, and anybody with Wealth Lab can test my version of Hershey's program. Price Physics isn't mystics or even close.
 
Quote from bwolinsky:

Another post about Trend Following and no exact mathematical definition yet? I see a site that has no idea what trend following is.

Come now, don't you have performance summaries you can advertise here?
More...

I agree with that 100%. As the matter of fact I was waiting for an intelligent reply by the OP to your very simple and well deserved question myself. I have been saying for years that "TREND" is nothing but perception of a past observed data set. It's a "mirage" if you will. The corner stone question, however, is: If one believes that there is "trend" does it change the probability of the next data point to be with this trend or against it? I would like to add to your well defined question my sub question: Is there a proof that a trend established on any given time frame somehow changes the probability of the next time frame to be a continuation of that trend or not? I will await the answer patiently (if the original OP does actually have one).

P.S. I have actually read the books mentioned in this thread. My conclusion is that the author suffers a serious lack of general Probabilities Theory knowledge that intern creates multiple wrong conclusions and misinterpretations of observed data series. It's like reading a book written by a cook where he is discussing organic chemistry processes observed in preparation of his favorite dish.
 
market searches for sellers when rising,buyers when dropping,if there is no market altering news the mirage becomes the supp/res..the sheep like to flock together
 
Quote from MAESTRO:

I agree with that 100%. As the matter of fact I was waiting for an intelligent reply by the OP to your very simple and well deserved question myself. I have been saying for years that "TREND" is nothing but perception of a past observed data set. It's a "mirage" if you will. The corner stone question, however, is: If one believes that there is "trend" does it change the probability of the next data point to be with this trend or against it? I would like to add to your well defined question my sub question: Is there a proof that a trend established on any given time frame somehow changes the probability of the next time frame to be a continuation of that trend or not? I will await the answer patiently (if the original OP does actually have one).
More...

The problem is, bwolinsky himself is a CPA and self-proclaimed stock exchange owner...yet he buys into esoterica from would-be ET gurus that's supposed to be accepted prima facie. No serious CTA says they "believe in Price Physics" yet can't produce any audited performance records.

Oh, well he did have some not-so-good ventures at Collective2 and Covestor. His mentors haven't even ventured that far.

At least there's a mountain of performance data from various trend-followers, some being alpha-generating and some not.
 
Quote from jsp326:

The problem is, bwolinsky himself is a CPA and self-proclaimed stock exchange owner...yet he buys into esoterica from would-be ET gurus that's supposed to be accepted prima facie. No serious CTA says they "believe in Price Physics" yet can't produce any audited performance records.

Oh, well he did have some not-so-good ventures at Collective2 and Covestor. His mentors haven't even ventured that far.

At least there's a mountain of performance data from various trend-followers, some being alpha-generating and some not.
More...

Thank you for your insight. However, I prefer to stay away from the actual performance discussions here on ET. I think that everyone here deserves a benefit of a doubt. I am more interested in knowledge, education and sharing theoretical points of view. The question raised by bwolinsky is a very valid one. I would very much like to hear the answer to his question along with my addition to it. To me there is not a past performance set of results that could convince me in any notion (such as trend) unless this notion is well defined theoretically and illustrated on a statistically significant data set.
 
"The well-constructed fortress of government, media, and Wall
Street, all designed to bleed you dry ...",

"None of those players want you to comprehend or act on the contents of this book. If you do get it, those groups lose
power and money. They do not want to lose anything. Their grip
on you is stranglehold tight..."

Michael. W. Covel

And after these words how can anybody seriously read these "Shaman of The Markets" creations? Unbelievable!
 
Quote from jsp326:

No serious CTA says they "believe in Price Physics" yet can't produce any audited performance records.
More...

If you're just starting, then there aren't any audited performance records to be had. That much is pretty obvious.
 
Quote from MAESTRO:

"The well-constructed fortress of government, media, and Wall
Street, all designed to bleed you dry ...",

"None of those players want you to comprehend or act on the contents of this book. If you do get it, those groups lose
power and money. They do not want to lose anything. Their grip
on you is stranglehold tight..."

Michael. W. Covel

And after these words how can anybody seriously read these "Shaman of The Markets" creations? Unbelievable!
More...

Yeah, many of us figured that out very quickly. The books are the equivalent of late night infomercial material for the gambling class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top