|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Did I refer anywhere to ¨"economic data"?
Do you know what is econophysics?
Can you find me link to a study (in scientific sense) about
predictivity of T/A?
All you can find is "one indicator by itself is not enough ...", so
all the times it does not work people forget about it
I do not use T/A, I just wrote and backtested some simple trading
system to get a statistical measure of its predictivity, and found
that it all depends on the optimization of the parameters, you can get
any system to work cheating and overfitting it
good luck with T/A and please leave some profit to not T/A traders..
If after 30 years t/a is around nobody provided a serious study to
support it the reason must clearly be they want to keep it secret so
just few enlightened traders can benefit from it .....
Why all these t/a gurus waste their time teaching on line or selling
course or signals using t/a (loosing the secret ..) instead of
applying it?
Ok I know !! They are enlightened, and they want to help humanity ..
to realize their Buddha ta/ nature
Greetings from a an unenlightened trader walking in the darkness
Ly
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <ftonetti@xxx> wrote:
>
> Economic data LAGS markets ... This can clearly be seen by viewing
> both price and fiscal data over centuries ... So if someone thinks
> they can get decent results using economic data then they're in for a
> long road to nowhere ...
>
> As far as T/A goes ... How long have you attempted to use T/A without
> some form of success ?
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "loveyourenemynow"
> <loveyourenemynow@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > thank for the interesting link.
> > Not random walk just means that models based on the random walk
> > hypothesis (gaussian distribution of the stochastic component) are
> not
> > accurate. It does not mean technical analysis is successfully
> > predicting market evolution, but that other models (not random walk,
> > not necessarily and I would add quite likely not technical analysis)
> > can be more successful.
> > By the way the two authors are not Princeton Professors
> (MIT,Pennstate
> > I think), and are not physicist but economists , and looking at the
> > Nature article you link to, they do not seem to like econophysics
> that
> > much ...
> > Econophysics papers are freely available on http://xxx.lanl.gov,
> but i
> > guess economist do not even read them, I personally like them
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ly
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "dalengo" <dalengo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This Princeton study shows on simple examples that price changes
> are
> > > not random:
> > > A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street
> > > Andrew W. Lo and A. Craig MacKinlay
> > > free text at http://press.princeton.edu/books/lo/
> > > One should not be a Princeton professor to know that, members of
> > > this board do know that, but still...
> > > There is an interesting synopsis on physicists turned to market
> > > 'dynamics' in Nature (London) magazine:
> > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415010a.html
> > > They rediscover the same non-random nature of the market.
> > > See also the Mathematics of Gambling by Ed Thorp
> > > (free at) http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/tog.htm
> > > to see how one can use stat. anomalies in pricing to get some
> 10^$.
> > >
> > > cheers-- alex
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "cstrader" <cstrader232@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Although I very much hate to say it, I am indeed skeptical that
> > > there are
> > > > any technical systems that work consistently. I am also
> convinced
> > > (see Ly's
> > > > argument) that if technical analysis ever did work, it works
> less
> > > well now
> > > > than it did in the past.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to hear from any technical trader who can provide
> a
> > > complete
> > > > and independently verified list (for instance on
> > > www.timertrac.com) of his
> > > > or her trades that show a profit that beats some benchmark (say
> > > sp500) over
> > > > a consecutive period of 3 recent years.
> > > >
> > > > Ly, can you explain why volatility analysis is different than
> > > technical
> > > > analysis? Can you give examples of volatility systems that
> might
> > > be
> > > > useful? Also, can you explain your statement regarding
> > > the "correlation
> > > > between volumes and prices?"
> > > >
> > > > One example of a volatility-based system that may be successful
> is
> > > the
> > > > "fasttrack" approach (see for instance
> > > > http://www.greenmountainaccess.net/~wwgansz/.
> > > >
> > > > really enjoying the thread!
> > > >
> > > > chuck
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Tom Tom" <michel_b_g@>
> > > > To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:50 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: Random Walk - step 2 - :
> > > Predicitable ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Bman,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure there is psychological and human behaviour in this game,
> > > and it has
> > > > > to
> > > > > be considered.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the financial instition should say us "yes it is
> > > predictable"... so we
> > > > > put all our money on the market for them. If they say, "it is
> > > random walk"
> > > > > people will leave the market and give less money to it.
> > > > > It need to be balanced i think...maybe yes maybe not, so
> mystery
> > > is keep
> > > > > and
> > > > > financial institution have maximum cards to play in their
> hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > I aggree 100% with Chuck about this line "technical analysis
> has
> > > not been
> > > > > validated in controlled studies"...
> > > > > It is true, i have never read (if someone know where to find,
> i
> > > am very
> > > > > interrested, thx) a clean scientific demonstration about
> winning
> > > trading
> > > > > system... nor an old mechanical trader publish any trading
> > > reconstruction
> > > > > based on real trade winned by his trading system and showing
> > > precise
> > > > > reports
> > > > > and indicator used... and it frighten me sometimes, because
> > > maybe after
> > > > > all
> > > > > the winner we show us are only a small part of the people
> which
> > > take a big
> > > > > risk and win (big risk = big return if lucky = good
> trader ?).
> > > Those who
> > > > > take a big risk and did'nt win are no more here.
> > > > > Statically, on all the trader over the world, their is some
> who
> > > can be
> > > > > lucky
> > > > > and win 10 years , 20 or more consecutive years... few
> people...
> > > but
> > > > > possible. Are their technics consistent ? Do they adapt their
> > > technics
> > > > > over
> > > > > the time ? (so profit cannot be consistent because we cannot
> for
> > > sure have
> > > > > a
> > > > > good trading system everytime).
> > > > > Why not a book on a big trading looser ? : )) so trader (bad
> or
> > > good)
> > > > > would
> > > > > make money not by trading but by publishing book héhé.
> > > > > YES we can make money on the market it is a fact, but we have
> to
> > > be
> > > > > very...
> > > > > very... very carrefull i think if we want it to be consitent
> > > over the
> > > > > time.
> > > > > The hard compromises we face is : Commission / Returns and
> > > Risk / Profit
> > > > > expected.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Their is are two book on the subject, i find the title funny :
> > > > >
> > > > > 1- A random walk down wall street, by Burton G. Malkiel
> > > > > http://people.brandeis.edu/~yanzp/Study%20Notes/A%20Random%
> > > 20Walk%20down%20Wall%20Street.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > 2- A non-random walk down wall street, bu Andrew W.Lo and A.
> > > Craig
> > > > > MacKinlay
> > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Non-Random-Walk-Down-Wall-
> > > Street/dp/0691092567
> > > > >
> > > > > It show well the problem.
> > > > > I did'nt read the first one (just the abstract)
> > > > > I just read fastly thez second one. Very good, go deep in the
> > > problem with
> > > > > mathematic backgound to show assumption which are made inside.
> > > > >
> > > > > First one say from its abstarct : "this is random walk, and
> all
> > > that we
> > > > > can
> > > > > do is good managing of risk"
> > > > > Second one say : "this is not random walk because volatility
> > > don't follow
> > > > > random walk model"
> > > > > All seems about volatility :
> > > > > First one : risk managment = manage portfolio gievn the
> > > volatility
> > > > > (=risk).
> > > > > Second one : volatility is not random
> > > > >
> > > > > So to go deep on the subject :
> > > > > Does someones here make pure volatility based trading system
> on
> > > Amibroker
> > > > > ?
> > > > > Can we have his feeling about that ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Mich.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: brpnw1
> > > > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: Random Walk - step 2 - :
> Predicitable ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact that people make consistent money off the stock
> market
> > > is
> > > > > evidence that the markets are not random. It appears that
> self-
> > > > > purported "experts" who likely work for large financial firms
> > > will
> > > > > go to great lengths to use data to help people forget that the
> > > > > markets are not random -- of course it's not random, because
> > > people
> > > > > are making consistent wins off the market, using technical
> > > analysis.
> > > > > People such as John Ehlers, for example, who have created
> black
> > > box
> > > > > mehods that will always profit from the market, without any
> human
> > > > > intervention.
> > > > >
> > > > > These financial firms have everything to gain by
> demonstrating
> > > that
> > > > > technical analysis is an illusion. They want to handle your
> > > money so
> > > > > they can make their profits. Don't ever believe them. They
> want
> > > you
> > > > > to ride out the long-term dips in the market without ever
> moving
> > > > > your money. They make more money if you don't move your
> money.
> > > The
> > > > > compliance portion of the financial industry goes to greath
> > > lengths
> > > > > to make sure that once they have your money, very few people
> in
> > > the
> > > > > financial world can actually use technical analysis to make
> you
> > > > > regular profits. Try getting a job as a financial planner,
> based
> > > on
> > > > > your ability to make people money using technical analysis --
> > > you'll
> > > > > never get near a desk at any firm. They don't want you to
> > > contradict
> > > > > the BS that they feed the masses.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order for financial firms to make money off you, they have
> to
> > > > > make you lose money. Somebody always loses in the stock
> market.
> > > They
> > > > > just want to make sure it's you.
> > > > >
> > > > > So continue to seek out technical analysis to make consistent
> > > gains
> > > > > in the market. Regularly read articles written by people who
> are
> > > > > already doing this successfully, so you don't lose track of
> > > reality,
> > > > > since the financial firms are rich enough to produce a very
> > > > > convincing BS argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Bman
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "cstrader" ...> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Hi Tom Tom:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Yes, an interesting article. I was particularly intrigued by
> this
> > > > > line:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"technical analysis has not been validated in controlled
> > > studies "
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Is there any evidence that what we are trying to do might ever
> > > > > work? How
> > > > >>could we prove that it does?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>chuck
> > > > >>
> > > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Tom" ...>
> > > > >>To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:12 PM
> > > > >>Subject: [amibroker] Random Walk - step 2 - : Predicitable ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > To go on dicussion about random walk, nice article at the
> > > middle
> > > > > of this
> > > > >> > page :
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411georw.htm
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Combine: Random Walk and Prediction.
> > > > >> > Technical analysis... usefull ? Financial information ...
> > > > > usefull ? Even
> > > > >> > illegal information (hidden to public) .. usefull ? Last
> one
> > > > > maybe.
> > > > >> > Others,
> > > > >> > humm....
> > > > >> > This is what about deals this article.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For me, next theory could be a Chaotic Fractal Near-Random
> > > > > Walk... : ))
> > > > >> > Chaotic : because spurious peak in the data wich can
> initiate
> > > > > further
> > > > >> > mouvment
> > > > >> > Fractal : year, month, day, hour, minute, sec... same
> patterns
> > > > >> > Near-Random Walk : Random Walk but predictable, because i
> > > don't
> > > > > think
> > > > >> > price
> > > > >> > move randomly...
> > > > >> > If they move randomly... tehnical or fundamental analysis
> are
> > > > > useless, so
> > > > >> > there is no mean to try to trade at all, (only to give
> > > > > commission to the
> > > > >> > broker héhé).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Seriously, from this article, what seems emerging from last
> > > > > years, is that
> > > > >> > price is random walk, but volatility maybe not... It is
> well
> > > > > explained in
> > > > >> > the article. Arch and Garch model are mentionned.
> > > > >> > Someone try this on AB ? Trade based only about volatility
> > > > > prediction (so
> > > > >> > predict risk, and manage portfolio depending those
> prediction
> > > > > about
> > > > >> > volatility)... and so don't bother with the price random-
> > > walk ?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > >> > Mich
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > __________________________________________________________
> > > > >> > Les révélations de la starac 6 commentées par Jérémy!
> > > > >> > http://starac2006.spaces.live.com/
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please note that this group is for discussion between
> users
> > > only.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail
> directly
> > > to
> > > > >> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check
> > > DEVLOG:
> > > > >> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For other support material please check also:
> > > > >> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Windows Live Messenger sur i-modeT : dialoguez avec vos amis
> > > depuis votre
> > > > > mobile comme sur PC !
> http://mobile.live.fr/messenger/bouygues/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users
> only.
> > > > >
> > > > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly
> to
> > > > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > > > >
> > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check
> DEVLOG:
> > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> > > > >
> > > > > For other support material please check also:
> > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/568 - Release Date: 12/4/2006 3:20 PM
|