Unbelievable but true: CFTC declares Technical Analysys as FRAUD :D!!!

[axeman]

Deep Blue, IBMs second machine, beat Kasparov, not
Big Blue.

Deep blue used a TWEAKED brute force attack to beat Gary.
Only the intelligent paths are searched.

All the complex chess playing algorithms that the
computer science community had been developing for
decades was thrown out the window for a massive
chess specific array of processors.
Coupled with a huge database of known chess positions,
it was enough to beat Gary.

The massively parallel machine was capable of
computing 100-200 billion moves within three minutes.

Version 2 will double the speed, and contains 256 of
these custom chess processors.

None of this fancy neural net stuff was used to
my knowledge.


peace

axeman

Quote from Scientist:


It's not difficult, it just needs to factor in all the varieties and idiosyncracies of people's discretionary playing. The problem is that a computer will always do the BEST thing, while a human will do what he FEELS or thinks from EXPERIENCE has worked best in the bast - Almost like genetic algorithms, which brings us to the neural networks debate.

If you had a chess program that plays lets say 10 or 20 games VS Garry Kasparov, analyzing his strategy utilizing neural nets, it would quickly find the weakest spots of his playing style through genetic progression / to say inheriting and reproducing valid parameters and coupling them with each other, VS killing those strategies that don't work. That way, the computer would very very quickly reduce it's processing load enormously by simple eliminating billions of possibilities.

This is not bullshit, this actually works, and it's been proven by beating Garry Kasparov himself with IBM's "Big Blue" now a few years ago. At the time, everybody thought a computer could never beat a good human player. You bloody bet it can.
All you have to do is reduce it's processing load.


~Scientist.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Scientist:


I don't care whether you think there can't be disagreement over price

Of course there's disagreement over price. Otherwise price would never change.

There CERTAINLY ARE timeframes in anything you trade, and if you think they don't exist or larger timeframes don't influence / overpower smaller timeframes etc, well then mate I'm afraid UR not gonna be around as long as I will...

Who said timeframes don't influence each other? I hope you're as good at trading as you are at setting up straw men.

 

[Scientist]

Quote from dbphoenix:



Of course there's disagreement over price. Otherwise price would never change.

Who said timeframes don't influence each other? I hope you're as good at trading as you are at setting up straw men.

ROFL

Can I requote your quote on this very board from 5 minutes ago??

Quote from dbphoenix:
Price is price, either higher, lower, or the same as a minute ago (or whenever). There can be no disagreement as to price. There are no settings, no timeframes. It is what it is.

HAHAHA. - I'm not setting up strawmen - You're setting yourself up as a jester!

Get a life man - Even a phoenix can only burn so many times...

~Scientist

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from JT47319:

As a short-term player, one is not concerned with actual fair value, one is concerned with MAKING A MARKET for said long-term players.

We'll have to disagree on that. I couldn't care less about making a market for anybody; I'm concerned about making a profitable trade.

The use of TA by traders is simply a never ending search, and a forever lagging one at that, for what is perceived value so he can TRADE AROUND IT.

We'll have to disagree on that as well. Levels at which participants have bought and sold do not lag; they're already in the chart and provide potential support and resistance. Whether they will in fact provide support or resistance will not be known until price gets there, which is one difference between a pullback and a reversal.

MA is simply a moving target of what COULD be the consensus value as price moves on and then add into the confusion that what is bargain price on one timeframe is too expensive on another. Its not an exact tool nor the most accurate one by far, it is simply one way to attempt to identify what the majority of market participants think is the general price.

If an MA represented consensus value in any time frame, then it would provide consistent support and resistance. It doesn't, largely because there is no "it" but rather a great many "they" and also because there is no agreement as to what is a fair price. If one wants to know "what the majority of market participants think is the general price", find those levels at which the majority of them bought and sold the instrument.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Scientist:

Can I requote your quote on this very board from 5 minutes ago??

So? The price at any given moment doesn't change across timeframes. $2 is $2. It isn't $1.90 on a 5m chart and $2.25 on the 15.

 

[Scientist]

Quote from axeman:

Deep Blue, IBMs second machine, beat Kasparov, not
Big Blue.

Deep blue used a TWEAKED brute force attack to beat Gary.
Only the intelligent paths are searched.

All the complex chess playing algorithms that the
computer science community had been developing for
decades was thrown out the window for a massive
chess specific array of processors.
Coupled with a huge database of known chess positions,
it was enough to beat Gary.

The massively parallel machine was capable of
computing 100-200 billion moves within three minutes.

Version 2 will double the speed, and contains 256 of
these custom chess processors.

None of this fancy neural net stuff was used to
my knowledge.


peace

axeman

UR right axeman. No neural nets were used for Deep Blue. However, they're to my knowledge becoming standard in good chess programs these days, and most can outperform every chessplayer.

My great admiration to you for your observation and to Kasparov for his amazing mind, being able to beat anything but an absolute MEGA-monster-supercomputer...

Won't go into my head, that....

Peace,
Scienceman

 

[JT47319]

Quote from dbphoenix:

We'll have to disagree on that. I couldn't care less about making a market for anybody; I'm concerned about making a profitable trade.

Ah, but you ARE making a market whether you want to or not. We are, for all intents and purposes, electronic pit traders. We are all searching for some sort of edge that will help us ride the coat tails of the long term, big money players. Whether its scalping between support/resistance (ie the buyers group on end of the pit and the sellers on the other end) or riding along as the buyers trample the sellers. We do not move the markets, we provide the liquidity and make the market, that is how we as traders make money.

If an MA represented consensus value in any time frame, then it would provide consistent support and resistance. It doesn't, largely because there is no "it" but rather a great many "they" and also because there is no agreement as to what is a fair price. If one wants to know "what the majority of market participants think is the general price", find those levels at which the majority of them bought and sold the instrument.

You're still arguing around the same points that I already made. MA is just a moving target of value. I barely, if at all, use MAs. I myself ascribe to Auction Market Theory and Market Profile, which does in fact try and identify high volume price lines.

 

[Scientist]

Quote from dbphoenix:



So? The price at any given moment doesn't change across timeframes. $2 is $2. It isn't $1.90 on a 5m chart and $2.25 on the 15.

LOL - Now you're REALLY making a fool of yourself :
This isn't what I was talking about. I never argued that a price changes across timeframes. All I said is that the timeframes have an effect on each other.

YOU - And right now you're trying to distract - Negated yourself TWICE in the same breath within 5 minutes...

I repeat it here clearly, so even a moron can get it:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from dbphoenix (1):
Of course there's disagreement over price. Otherwise price would never change.

Who said timeframes don't influence each other? ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from dbphoenix (2) - 5 minutes later:
Price is price, either higher, lower, or the same as a minute ago (or whenever). There can be no disagreement as to price.

There are no settings, no timeframes. It is what it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since you're so blatantly contradicting yourself, you're obviously a wannabe and don't know what you're talking about...

Sorry,
~Scientist

 

[Scientist]

Quote from JT47319:

Ah, but you ARE making a market whether you want to or not. We are, for all intents and purposes, electronic pit traders. We are all searching for some sort of edge that will help us ride the coat tails of the long term, big money players. Whether its scalping between support/resistance (ie the buyers group on end of the pit and the sellers on the other end) or riding along as the buyers trample the sellers. We do not move the markets, we provide the liquidity and make the market, that is how we as traders make money.

Aaah... At least somebody who understands at least the basics of how markets work. Very much unlike phoenix

Quote from JT47319:
You're still arguing around the same points that I already made.

Seems to be one of phoenix's issues. Maybe he should consider some professional help...

-Hmmm, phoenix?

~Scientist

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from JT47319:

Ah, but you ARE making a market whether you want to or not.

Yes, but that's not my objective, anymore than my purpose in buying a new air conditioner is to inject liquidity into the economy.

You're still arguing around the same points that I already made. MA is just a moving target of value.

MA is a representation of what price was at some point or series of points. That price represents only what n people paid for the instrument. Whether that price represented "value" is a separate issue. The MA is irrelevant.

This is not to say that people can't make money using MAs. People make money using stochastics, CCIs, MACDs, RSIs, and other of hundreds of indicators. But all of these indicators are derivatives of price (and/or volume). So why not understand price?

Look at the infamous Moving Average Crossover!. MA "A" crossed above MA "B". Why? Because price rose. Whether or not the MA movement is "important" depends entirely on whether or not the price movement is important. Those who make their judgements based on price movement are always going to be ahead.