[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[amibroker] Re: Philosophical question



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

(Subjective) investigations into the 'human condition' have been 
going on, in parallel with our search for objective truths, as long 
as humanity has been around.

This body of information has been collected and preserved, by the 
few, for the benefit of mankind (the many) and consitutes a SCIENCE 
to its guardians, adherents and students.

>From that body of WISDOM two principles can be extracted that are 
relevant to your comments:

holism is universally persistent (all things are made in the IMAGE of 
the creator)

and, 

flowing from that, we derive the principle of CORRESPONDENCE 
(operating principles in one sphere, have their corresponding 
principle in another)...

...but that is going to far OT.

Over to trading (OR how the above relates to trading):

Over the long term the bias of the (stock) market is a function of 
the earnings performance of the component companies.

This is skewed by the behaviour of market participants, which 
introduces randomness to the markets.

The shorter the timeframe the more dominant is 'randomness' (which of 
course is not true randomness).


(If you are interested in the subject of organising principles and 
holism Carl Jung's work on Psychological Archetypes is a wonderful 
example of how the universal paradigms play out in the affairs of 
wo/mankind).

brian_z *:-)

--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ronald Davis" <xokie7@xxx> wrote:
>
> I maintain the view that algorithms exist in nature, and that 
people who develop algorighms are only discovering another one of 
nature's secrets. 
> 
> When my son first showed me Amibroker several years ago, I looked 
at charts with Stochastics, and RSI, and I became convinced that 
mother nature has algorithms that can find the central core of all of 
that volatility. 
> 
> I have yet to discover mother nature's algorighms, but my attempts 
have led me to some conclusions. 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> 
> My results WERE BEST when I "AVERAGED THE LAST SEVERAL HUNDRED DAYS 
OF ACTIVITY"
> 
> and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this average of 
hundreds of days.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> 
> My results WERE LESS GOOD when I "AVERAGED OF LAST 9 DAYS OF 
ACTIVITY" 
> 
> and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this average of 
only 9 days.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> 
> Hope this helps someone. Ron D
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Louis Préfontaine 
>   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>   Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:25 PM
>   Subject: [amibroker] Philosophical question
> 
> 
>   Hi group,
> 
>   I just began reading Howard Bandy's book (even though I did not 
finish Aronson's book yet...), and a somehow philosophical question 
came to my mind when he speaks about the market's inefficiency and 
how we must take advantage of it.   He talks both about moving 
averages and breakout, and I was wondering which one of the two 
techniques do you think is the more promising for such a system?
> 
>   I ask this because as far as subjective technical analysis is 
concerned, I am more used with breakout techniques.  But the real 
inefficiency in breakout techniques comes from time, that is if one 
can act quickly enough to make a profit from the sudden change in 
price.  But from my experience it seems to be more difficult with EOD 
or hourly data.  And it is less profitable for someone (like me) who 
is using options, which tend to anticipate the change quicker than it 
really happens.
> 
>   Moving averages techniques, on the other side, seems a bit 
mystical to me, and maybe a bit too simple or too « easy ».  I don't 
know much about them...
> 
>   But anyway, my question is: which one of those two techniques do 
you prefer, or do you use both for entering a trade, or shorting a 
trade?  What can be a good way to trade for someone (like me) who 
wants to trade hourly data and can't always get the beginning of a 
breakout?
> 
>   Thanks!
> 
>   Louis
>



------------------------------------

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/