Tribute to Brooks

volpri said:
Since Fama and Buffet were mentioned in this thread relation to EMH some of you may want to read:

https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-efficient-market-hypothesis-2010-12

Little hints of “the posters” beliefs and the source of the underlying assumptions.
More...
Wait are you arguing for using fundamentals instead of price action?

anyway please no more strawmen. I didn’t say that strong form emh is true, I said semi-strong form is the what literally every manager believes (including buffet).

For the record EMH is seen as a classification of how mature a market is. Inefficient markets post wide bid/ask spread because there’s not a lot of info or liquidity. Semi-strong form efficiency means pretty tight spreads (most S&P stocks have b/a of a penny) and sufficient liquidity (Kyle limit). If all you use is the chart then you believe that all the info you need is in the price, which is actually what strong form EMH says. The one difference is that you make the illogical conclusion that you can use historical prices to generate a better model of fair value, whereas the authors of EMH would contend that you cannot. Considering that the most informed traders in the world (your citadel, Virtu, rentech) do not use Al brooks or “price action” trading, then it’s fairly safe to say that those using it are the uninformed and hence noise.
 
longandshort said:
Wait are you arguing for using fundamentals instead of price action?

anyway please no more strawmen. I didn’t say that strong form emh is true, I said semi-strong form is the what literally every manager believes (including buffet).

For the record EMH is seen as a classification of how mature a market is. Inefficient markets post wide bid/ask spread because there’s not a lot of info or liquidity. Semi-strong form efficiency means pretty tight spreads (most S&P stocks have b/a of a penny) and sufficient liquidity (Kyle limit). If all you use is the chart then you believe that all the info you need is in the price, which is actually what strong form EMH says. The one difference is that you make the illogical conclusion that you can use historical prices to generate a better model of fair value, whereas the authors of EMH would contend that you cannot. Considering that the most informed traders in the world (your citadel, Virtu, rentech) do not use Al brooks or “price action” trading, then it’s fairly safe to say that those using it are the uninformed and hence noise.
More...
Maybe you should go get a job teaching at some university as what you speak of on this thread is academia; not going to help the average ET trader, nor is it relevant to what they are trying to do.

I am not using Fundamental to argue price action. I am showing that what you say of Buffet is not exactly telling the whole story and that you are a disciple of Fama who Buffet proved to be wrong. EMPIRICALLY I might add. ROFLMAO.

As concerns fundamentals and price action; Fundamentals ultimately determine price. TA and those things Al teaches are what happens in between. Fundamentally price is not going to go straight up or down with no respite. That is why we have PB…Trading Ranges…Channels…etc..

Do you seriously think that as a scalper something that happened a month ago means anything to me? I am barely interested in 4 hours ago. A little interested in 1 hour ago. Some what interested in 15 min ago. Very interested in 5 minutes ago. And occasionally will look at 2m charts.
 
Last edited:
PS: I think we all discern and see your motive for being here on this thread. Give it up man. You will not succeed discrediting Brooks on a thread that is tribute to him regardless of Padu’s success or not. Padu, to his credit sometimes tells why he believes he failed using Brooks some of brooks concepts. At least he is transparent.
 
@volpri
I’m not sure if you get this but even if you look at a 2m chart you are looking at historical data and using that as a basis for your assessment of the fair value of a security. I’m not going to get into your intentional mischaracterization of semi strong EMH. Isn’t it funny how you have spent years “trading” and yet wouldn’t be qualified for an actual job trading (prop or bank or hedge fund)? Stop wasting your time with brooks and his quackery.
 
volpri said:
academia
More...

We retail traders are muppets, apes, and little guys. If you don't have formal education from a Wall Street approved institution you can't understand multi-syllable words and big picture ideas. If your liquid net-worth does not have 8 or more zeros you aren't "a player" according to Gordon Gecko... You are a plumber who has built nothing. Black-Scholes took down LTCM... and the Wall Street Mensas. Yet, a few years later for doing "god's work", Goldman and others were only awarded hundreds of billions, tens for sure, but not a Pulitzer. Losers! I'll stop there.

Remember... the enlisted get three squares a day, even though the mess hall is not shown in a SOP manual.

 
longandshort said:
@volpri
I’m not sure if you get this but even if you look at a 2m chart you are looking at historical data and using that as a basis for your assessment of the fair value of a security. I’m not going to get into your intentional mischaracterization of semi strong EMH. Isn’t it funny how you have spent years “trading” and yet wouldn’t be qualified for an actual job trading (prop or bank or hedge fund)? Stop wasting your time with brooks and his quackery.
More...
I look at 2 min occasionally to gauge inertia..MOM…and entry points for 5 min. I am looking for inefficiencies, not fair value.

So now you want to go after my job or my qualifications? LOL. I do not WANT to work at a prop, bank, hedge fund, investment firm or any other institution.

I went to red and bigger letters since you seem to have a hard time with simple empirical observations. It is all highlighted for you.

As far as wasting my time I actually think it is YOU wasting your time. I am quickly learning Padu’s tactics of using Red and Big to emphasize a point. Just in case academia has you blinded to the technique, I openly divulge it.

Now you just run along and have a nice weekend dreaming up some more brownian movements, randomness, fair value, and EMH and how to apply it to scalpers. Whatever you come up with I will warn you beforehand it won’t dance for me nor get me singing another tune.

Do you know what fama means in spanish? It means fame. Fama has fallen off the pedestal he built and his season is over. Comprendo. Brownian motion is applied incorrectly to trading, especially scalping, and EMH while some value to scalping it is more important to understand inefficiencies and apply that to scalping. Finally noise is a myth. There is no noise. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

THERE IS ONLY THE MARKET AND IT’s movements and every last movement, down to a tick, are intentional.
 
volpri said:
PS: I think we all discern and see your motive for being here on this thread. Give it up man. You will not succeed discrediting Brooks on a thread that is tribute to him regardless of Padu’s success or not. Padu, to his credit sometimes tells why he believes he failed using Brooks some of brooks concepts. At least he is transparent.
More...
This guy sounds like marketsurfer although somewhat less literate. The only reason I responded to him at all was to alert the journeymen in here that he is simply useless noise. I rarely put anyone on ignore but enough is enough of his gibberish. I would recommend anyone really invested in learning to trade to do the same. To those of who trade for a living, he is just another dope on the internet but to those struggling to learn, he is toxic.
 
volpri said:
THERE IS ONLY THE MARKET AND IT’s movements and every last movement, down to a tick, are intentional.
More...
you cannot discern intention using price data. The vast majority of the flow in the market is not using tick data to generate an investment thesis. The only ones who are doing so successfully are hft market makers. And they do not use Brooks’ price action analysis lol.
 
speedo said:
This guy sounds like marketsurfer although somewhat less literate. The only reason I responded to him at all was to alert the journeymen in here that he is simply useless noise. I rarely put anyone on ignore but enough is enough of his gibberish. I would recommend anyone really invested in learning to trade to do the same. To those of who trade for a living, he is just another dope on the internet but to those struggling to learn, he is toxic.
More...
Yes god forbid I question your methodology and approach. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top