You can't generate positive alpha without a PhD.

[whitster]

explain to me how a system that is based on the aggregate actions of millions of participants, none of whom are perfectly rational, all of whom have emotions, opinions (price IS opinion), goals, etc. could result in a system wherein no edge could ever be found

edges are always present in the market. good traders know how to

1) FIND their edge
2) use proper risk management to exploit their edge (i'm a proponent of game theory myself)

also, let's remember that less than 8% of the TRADES in the eminis account for over 90% of the volume.

iow, a relatively small # of market participants are the ones that most strongly influence order flow.

understanding that can lead to successful edges if you know how to study it and what to look for

 

[WallStGolfer31]

Quote from shanoballs:

in a trading universe which consists of so many traders, i would not be surprised to find a 12 year winning streak. imagine 100,000 market participants, and imagine just my lucky about 50% of them go belly up every year, by the 12th year, you would have approximately 49 people who have flawless trading records just by luck. so is there a chance that your trading record is simply due to luck? absolutely, just my .02:

<img src="http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/233/tradershb1.gif"

Damn good! I'm glad someone else here isn't a blind fool

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from WallStGolfer31:

That's why I'm indexed till I get out of the graduate school of business.

You're all blind, and going to eyell at me because I told you, your returns are mostly random.

Using information everyone has access to thinking your "strategy" is working. Oh let me not forget your mad trading skills. As they are the fire that dives the train. NOT


All I can say to the "traders" here is good luck, I hope your misguided random adventure lands you in a net positive, but I can't feel sorry for those who fool themselves.

Whatever.


Long-Term Capital Management opened for business in February 1994 with $1.25 billion in funds. Armed with the cachet of its founders' stellar credentials (Robert Merton and Myron Scholes, 1997 Nobel Prize laureates in economics, were among the partners), it quickly parlayed expertise at reading computer models of financial markets and seemingly limitless access to financing into stunning results. By the end of 1995, it had tripled its equity capital and total assets had grown to $102 billion.

 

[Renegen]

I don't know what to think, but this aggregate of "advice" to every fool that enters this forum will mean the market will be empty of any fools. Look at how many people lurk in this forum. I'll try not to be selfish, can't you stick to cryptic clues?


hey whistler what is that gender differentiation thing you're talking about? I'm actually beginning to think people's actions depend in big part on the environment.

 

[whitster]

there is a reason why second year college students are called "sophomore". the origins are from the Greek

Soph - wise

More - idiot (as in moron).

they are called sophomores because they are "wise" ie a bit schooled in academic theory but also MORONS because they think they know far more than they do, and they don't understand the difference between WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE

academics who opine on the market are simply salving their ego. most cannot actually TRADE, so they define all edges and success as statistical outliers in a random sequence

your math is SERIOUSLY lacking. if you are truly going to establish the statistics, do it with scalpers.

if i make (on average) 5 trades a day, that is well over 1000 trades a year

do that for 5 years successfully and that is over 5000 trades. if traders were truly only benefiting from randomness, then please consider the relatively probability of this # of individual events leading to positive expectancy, ESPECIALLY considering transaction costs and slippage

it is fallacious to use the # of traders as the variable

the issue is the # of trades.

if you enter one trade a year, and are successful that could obviously be random.

with thousands of trades, there is no way randomness could account for anywhere NEAR the # of successful traders that are out there.

to state it would be statistically unlikely is a gross understatement

 

[ammo]

golfer,a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing,keep studying,keep an open mind,keep your eyes wide open,its a jungle out there

 

[WallStGolfer31]

I love to see all these people in doubt. Vehemently verbally abusing me with whatever absurd insult comes to their mid. Giving me examples idiosyncratic people, funds, and events to "prove" they are right LOL.


From now on please just use this standard form below when replying, because it's all I've heard so far. Thanks

You are an __(child like insult here)___. You are wrong because I __(traded or invested)__ for __(Insert a large number here)__ years and that couldn't be random.

 

[WallStGolfer31]

Quote from whitster:

your math is SERIOUSLY lacking......

Oh so I guess stochastic partial differential equations, modern algebra, and topology aren't enough huh?

You must be a fucking moron.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from WallStGolfer31:

I love to see all these people in doubt. Vehemently verbally abusing me with whatever absurd insult comes to their mid. Giving me examples idiosyncratic people, funds, and events to "prove" they are right LOL.


From now on please just use this standard form below when replying, because it's all I've heard so far. Thanks

You are an __(child like insult here)___. You are wrong because I __(traded or invested)__ for __(Insert a large number here)__ years and that couldn't be random.

Do you have any statistically reliable data to make the case that there is any correlation between high ROI and a Ph.D?

(I have one, by the way; in law).

 

[Chagi]

Quote from mschey:

Congratulations...you took your first course in Finance, and stumbled onto the theory of market efficiency.

This was my first thought as well when I read his post.