Why Is The Obvious Not So Obvious?

[Ed48]

Something I've been thinking about for a while...

Suppose you were tasked with picking a stock, say from the S&P500, which had a good chance of being a decent percentage higher in a few days time.

Is this even possible? (Proponents of the efficient market hypothesis would say it's not because price movement is totally random. But I presume not many people on this site think price movement is totally random? )

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, what would you look for in a stock for it to do this? Obviously, it's no good picking a stock that barely moves from day to day. You need a stock with some volatility. But what else?

a) a stock that has fallen sharply? (maybe it's hit support or entered the demand zone, if you believe these levels have predictive power)
b) a stock that has just bounced up, off a low?
c) a stock that's broken out to new highs?
d) a stock that's in an uptrend but has just pulled back?
e) a stock which satisfies some TA criteria (RSI, MACD, Bollinger bands, Fibs etc, if you believe in this kind of stuff)
f) a stock recommended by Jim Cramer
g) ???
.

 

[The Obvious]

g) the obvious

 

[sandy_s]

Even if you have not found out the obvious but believe you are in that 90% who consistently give money to the rest 10%, do the opposite of what your instincts tell you.

Sell when you think you should buy

 

[The Obvious]

Is this even possible? (Proponents of the efficient market hypothesis would say it's not because price movement is totally random. But I presume not many people on this site think price movement is totally random? )

Most traders (especially retail) are directional traders. They go long because they expect price to go up, and short because they expect price to go down. If price action was totally random, this form of trading would be futile.

Price action may not be totally random all of the time but it's not very predictable, which is why the majority of traders don't succeed.

If you could find a way of identifying stocks which are statistically likely to move strongly up over subsequent days, then you would have yourself a money making machine.

Oh and by the way, if you do find it, I'd keep it to yourself.

 

[Onra]

Even if you have not found out the obvious but believe you are in that 90% who consistently give money to the rest 10%, do the opposite of what your instincts tell you.

Sell when you think you should buy

Is this the same principle as the famous quote
"a trade has to be a loser before it can be a winner"...?!

Now I assume you don't mean blindly averaging in, in order to "save" any trade...

So we're left with two options:
a. you know that price must reach a certain level (within a certain TF)
b. you know that has to come back to a certain level

 

[sandy_s]

Is this the same principle as the famous quote
"a trade has to be a loser before it can be a winner"...?!

Now I assume you don't mean blindly averaging in, in order to "save" any trade...

So we're left with two options:
a. you know that price must reach a certain level (within a certain TF)
b. you know that has to come back to a certain level

I don’t average in average in at anytime. If I enter a trade and it goes sour - it means I was wrong. Simple....I will not tolerate it beyond a certain point.

 

[Ed48]

Is this the same principle as the famous quote
"a trade has to be a loser before it can be a winner"...?!

Now I assume you don't mean blindly averaging in, in order to "save" any trade...

So we're left with two options:
a. you know that price must reach a certain level (within a certain TF)
b. you know that has to come back to a certain level

I think he/she means, do the opposite of what you think you should do.

Open two accounts, Jekyll and Hyde.

In the Jekyll account, trade like you normally do.
In the Hyde account, take an opposite position with exactly the same %stoploss and profit target. (ie. when Jekyll goes long, Hyde goes short and vice versa)

At the very least, you can't lose much because the trades will tend to cancel each other out.

 

[sandy_s]

Most traders (especially retail) are directional traders. They go long because they expect price to go up, and short because they expect price to go down. If price action was totally random, this form of trading would be futile.

Price action may not be totally random all of the time but it's not very predictable, which is why the majority of traders don't succeed.

If you could find a way of identifying stocks which are statistically likely to move strongly up over subsequent days, then you would have yourself a money making machine.

Oh and by the way, if you do find it, I'd keep it to yourself.

You bet Sir...you bet...

 

[Overnight]

...
At the very least, you can't lose much because the trades will tend to cancel each other out.

And you cannot gain much either. Like a calendar spread in futures.

 

[sandy_s]

I think he/she means, do the opposite of what you think you should do.

Open two accounts, Jekyll and Hyde.

In the Jekyll account, trade like you normally do.
In the Hyde account, take an opposite position with exactly the same %stoploss and profit target. (ie. when Jekyll goes long, Hyde goes short and vice versa)

At the very least, you can't lose much because the trades will tend to cancel each other out.

Surely one can do better than that

Haven’t you heard one can make a lot of money with an absolutely rot system? One just need to take a position opposite to the signal generated by the system...