Equities mainly with some options. Generally trend following with some mean reversion trading also.
But honestly good setups are everywhere, it's money management that's the key.
You can't generate positive alpha without a PhD.
- Thread starter WallStGolfer31
- Start date
Equities mainly with some options. Generally trend following with some mean reversion trading also.
But honestly good setups are everywhere, it's money management that's the key.
our perceptions are our reality
which means wall st golfer and everybody else is correct at the same time
this isn't some tree hugging mambo jumbo
this is real
trader who decides not to give up, will eventually find a nice strategy
and guys like MR. School here also lives his beliefs
so its all good
which means wall st golfer and everybody else is correct at the same time
this isn't some tree hugging mambo jumbo
this is real
trader who decides not to give up, will eventually find a nice strategy
and guys like MR. School here also lives his beliefs
so its all good
Quote from virgin:
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
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 ?
I think this guy got "lucky" to have a mommy and daddy to pay for his school and bronze his little poopies when he was a baby. Now it's time for little baby to go on his own and show the world he doesn't need a little diaper anymore.....
Why is everyone getting so bent out of shape? Do you care if someone thinks that the earth is flat or do you just write him off as a fool that is not worth arguing with? IF this PhD candidate ever gets his PhD AND ever scrapes up enough to fund a trading account then he will quickly find that his hypothesis is flawed. Anyone who has been in the markets for a while and knows other successful traders knows that the evidence does not lend this newbie's thesis much support which is why it isn't worth arguing. You can give me 1000 clever reasons why it is night but if the sun is shining they are just words that do not reflect reality. By the way if you are planning to work for any of the big trading houses you might not want to mention your hypothesis in the interview LOL
I give you credit for one thing, sticking with indexed funds. You are smart enough to know that at least when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is you really don't know all that much. Bon chance
I give you credit for one thing, sticking with indexed funds. You are smart enough to know that at least when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is you really don't know all that much. Bon chance
right..plenty of idiots running shitty LLC's...Yup..
And plenty of PhD's who couldn't trade their way out of a paper bag..
And plenty of High School dropouts who could knock your trading block off...
There is no correlation between wallpaper and trading acumen...
And plenty of PhD's who couldn't trade their way out of a paper bag..
And plenty of High School dropouts who could knock your trading block off...
There is no correlation between wallpaper and trading acumen...
Your = possessive
You're = contraction for you + are
That must have been some grad school you attended.
Did you get your diploma in the mail?
"You're all blind, and going to eyell at me because I told you, your returns are mostly random."
----
The Efficient Market Hypothesis is built on the premise that the market's return / price movement is random. This allows the practitioner to use the Normal Distribution - where the math is easy. In a Gaussian / Normal Distribution, there's a mean, mode, median, variance and standard deviation.
In reality, the market price movement
does not conform to a Gaussian / ND. The only way to arrive at a Gaussian Dsitribution is to throw out outliers and pretend they never happened. The odds of an event such as August of 1998 is 1 in 500 billion; Crash of '87 is 1 in 10^50. In a ND, they should have never have happened. But they did. And as much as you'd like to pretend they had never occured, and I know of some people who love that to happen, they did and that's reality.
If the markets are truely random, how is it that the Hurst Coefficient is never 1/2, as it would for a random market? The only time it is 1/2 is when it moves form above it to below it. But it is never exactly 1/2. How is it that the skewness and kurtosis is never zero?
But again, except when they move from above to below zero...
In reality, the market conforms to a Stable Pareto Levy distribution. In a SPL, there are no mean, mode, median, variance or standard deviation. At this point the math gets hard. You'd have to find a location parameter M, scale parameter C, 3rd and / or 4th moment about the mean (and mean in this sense is not the average.).
Just a side note, the father of EMH, Eugene Fama, based his work on a paper written by Louis Bachelier on French bonds for his PhD. His work was critique by Bernard Levy (of the Stable Pareto Levy Dsitribution) and Henri Poincare. His work was found to be of high honor, not of highest honor. In other words, it was found wanting by 2 of the most eminent mathematicians in history.
So, EMH was built on a foundation of sand.
----
The Efficient Market Hypothesis is built on the premise that the market's return / price movement is random. This allows the practitioner to use the Normal Distribution - where the math is easy. In a Gaussian / Normal Distribution, there's a mean, mode, median, variance and standard deviation.
In reality, the market price movement
does not conform to a Gaussian / ND. The only way to arrive at a Gaussian Dsitribution is to throw out outliers and pretend they never happened. The odds of an event such as August of 1998 is 1 in 500 billion; Crash of '87 is 1 in 10^50. In a ND, they should have never have happened. But they did. And as much as you'd like to pretend they had never occured, and I know of some people who love that to happen, they did and that's reality.
If the markets are truely random, how is it that the Hurst Coefficient is never 1/2, as it would for a random market? The only time it is 1/2 is when it moves form above it to below it. But it is never exactly 1/2. How is it that the skewness and kurtosis is never zero?
But again, except when they move from above to below zero...
In reality, the market conforms to a Stable Pareto Levy distribution. In a SPL, there are no mean, mode, median, variance or standard deviation. At this point the math gets hard. You'd have to find a location parameter M, scale parameter C, 3rd and / or 4th moment about the mean (and mean in this sense is not the average.).
Just a side note, the father of EMH, Eugene Fama, based his work on a paper written by Louis Bachelier on French bonds for his PhD. His work was critique by Bernard Levy (of the Stable Pareto Levy Dsitribution) and Henri Poincare. His work was found to be of high honor, not of highest honor. In other words, it was found wanting by 2 of the most eminent mathematicians in history.
So, EMH was built on a foundation of sand.