|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 01:23 PM 10/7/00 -0400, Dan wrote:
>In my experience external opinions, however brilliant and generously
>offered, are just simply a temporary crutch for anybody who wants to improve
>his/her trading in a sustainable way. Financially, you might benefit from
>some opinions, get hurt from others. Behaviorally, the net result will be
>that
>you will lose your self-sufficiency and ability to clearly and independently
>assess the market.
>
>Think about it - trading a black box system might make money but does not do
>a thing for your future trading ability.
You have razed very interesting question. I agree with you that people can
loose money even if they were given tomorrow newspaper and that to trade
based solely on some one else signals is a sure way to disaster.
But let suppose you post "signals" of the market future direction without
reviling how you have arrived to those predictions. And you are
consistently right 100%, 90%, 80% etc. Will those signals have value for
the rest of us? Majority (and I in the past) would say no. Because we do
not know how you produce those signals it has no value to us.
But now I would disagree with my previous opinion. The fact that such
predictions are possible at all is the very valuable fact by itself. It
will tell all of us that prediction of the market are possible and offer
scientific proof of it. So far I do not know that such proof exist. If
predictions possible then all we need is to find the way to do it. Let me
put it another way. Let suppose I disperse a remedy that cures presently
"un curable" illness. Then all researchers will know that they could find
it too even I am not reviling the chemical formula. Or let's recall famous
theorem Ferme. (If I spell the name correctly. The man wrote on the margin
of the book that he found a very simple solution of the theorem but has no
space to spell it out). It inspired mathematicians to look for it solution
for centuries. It lead to development of new fields in mathematics and
finally was solved (but solutions was not "very simple").
|