You can't generate positive alpha without a PhD.

Quote from TudorJones:

are you raising hell around here to get materials for your next article? :eek:
More...

Exactly. Out to prove he is SO SMART by writing articles. I know your kind real well - an expert at something they have never practiced before.

Truly, what a joke.
 
Quote from mschey:

Tearing down a model is a relatively simple process.....Wallstreet....pay attention here......you must question the assumptions(You['ll probably learn that around your senior year). If the assumptions are wrong, the model is flawed. In this case, the assumption that traders fail at a rate of 50% is flawed. The correct number to use is closer to the 90% level. (There is some research in this area, you can verify yourself if you'd like!) So, use a 90% wash out rate, then recalculate your results, and report back to us.

Trading, is a business just like any other. The assumption that exceptional results are the result of just random events is ridiculous to me. The fact is, great traders do what others don't They work harder, the evaluate differently, they manage adverse excursion better then most, and they are always able to recreate themselves and find new edges in the market place. When one edge dies, they change their approach and adapt to the market before they allow the strategy to put them out of business.
More...

I'm not doubting the trading abilities of anyone here, but here is something to consider. i ran a random signal test where i tell my computer to pick 292 random trades out of the SP market from 1982 to 2007, and i ran the test 255 times to replicate 255 traders. the results are below. out of 255 traders 78% of them were net positive, 67% of them made over $100,000, 55% of them made over $200,000 and 1% of those 255 traders made north of 1 million dollars simply by luck. i just thought that it was interesting. i redid the trader burnout calculation using 90% rate, i was not aware that there was data supporting the 90% burnout rate, i simply used the fact that less than 50% of fund managers do not beat market returns.

<img src = "http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9108/traderssjn5.gif"
 
Quote from whitster:

so what?

there are lots of hard working businessmen who fail in EVERY type of business

again, there is no statistically possible way that given thousands of trades a year, a trader could be successful year after year. ESPECIALLY considering commissions/slippage.

do the math

don't factor the # of traders. factor the # of traders TIMES the # of trades.

you will see that by randomness, you are looking at a MUCH smaller # of successful traders. way less than 1 in 1000
More...


Your can do simple addition and division, now where you're fucking up is thinking you can do probability. You've claimed in other posts you have a good background in statistics. You don't. Well, that is if your not just posting up garbage to support the other garbage your spitting out.


Do you even know what randomness is? Do you know how many times a monte carlo simulation can come up very very positive modeling a traders portfolio? You quote that these things are statistically valid enough to prove there is not randomness. Your point is completely nullified due to the fact you can't see you have hit a run of random positives and are now very net positive. Keep "trading" for another 20 years. Chances are, you'll be a miserable bottom feeder.
 
Quote from walterjennings:

......have fun paying for your letters :p
More...


My parents payed for both my undergrad an my masters. The doctorate program is costing me nothing. Thanks.
 
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.
More...

Plenty of PhD's that worked at LTCM. What was their excuse?
 
WallstGolfer31,



Honestly,at your age , I was like you, a "know it all type" in my second year of
the university

20 years later, I realize what an arrogant, ignorant prick I was :cool:


In the beginning of my trading career, the markets looked random to me and my results reflected that ; I calculated the expected value of my trades in the case you have no edge : spread*number of trades and that matched almost exactly the net result of my trades.

for example on my first 200 trades in a product with a spread of 1 point ; expected value = 200* (-1) = -200 points and the results of my trades was about -190 points, very close to a random expected outcome

now when I calculate the net result on my last 200 trades(and on any consecutive 200 trades of my last 2000 trades) with the same 1 point spread, I make about 120 points so that's 320 points better than a random expected outcome.

The improvement has come step by step as I gained insight and made little "discoveries" over the years , now it seems to level out AND my edge seems quite stable.

I keep having consistent "luck" , what you think ? :cool:
 
Your posts pretty much paints the picture. Why would anyone give a rats ass for what you posted when you can't even understand english.

If I need to further explain myself.

OHHHHHH MY!

Hehe

Thanks for people like you we can make some green!
 
Wow, you are some asshole, Golfboy. I can tell you will fail though, because of your ego. Have fun working nights at Mickey D's, Douchebag. :D :D :D :D You clueless Moron :confused: Oh, and it's not payed, it's paid. You have a master's, but haven't mastered fourth grade english LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top