|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
From: "john anderson" <johnarmit@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>This is not meant as a criticism of Balsara per se, but it is indicative
>of the sort of claims that are howled down in an academic environment
>because no evidence is provided, no clear methodology is defined...
>nothing.
>I agree that some of my colleagues in the University sector
>lack practical experience as traders, but I'm pretty certain that the
>amount of Tech Analysts publishing in this area are a damned sight worse
>when it comes to constructing sound, rigourous and replicable testing
>methodologies.
Talk about howling.. How about academia using standard statistical methods
that require stationarity on nonstationary stock data? These are not Crap
Generalisations? Granted that these methods provide "sound, rigourous and
replicable testing" but are worthless realtime.
There seems to be a lot of generalisations going around these days.
Ponder this for a moment: If the market were truly random as defined by a
normal distribution that would be a characteristic a trader could depend on
to trade. Market forces would invariably trade this away under the EMH.
Therefore the market would no longer be random.
Charles Kaucher
Barbie to Ken while driving past the local YMCA,
"Look! they spelled MACYS wrong."
|