|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Monday, May 14, 2001, 11:55:42 PM, Norman Winski wrote:
NW> NW: Yes, I agree. Most people are not proficient in the rigors
NW> of statistics, including me.
I was not looking for something rigorous, just the simplest stat view.
For example, I often check out a subjective idea by hand, going
through charts and seeing how it works. I tabulate the results into
"yes", "no", and that anathema of rigor, "maybe". :-) Even this simple
tabulation gives me a good idea of how "statistically" reliable the
idea might be.
You said that your idea had a "good track record", and I was hoping
that you had a similar very simplified tabulation of how it performed.
NW> If you like stastistical testing, I recommend:
NW> In the mid 70s, Thomas Reider wrote, "Astroloigcal Warnings &
NW> The Stock Market"
I was not asking about a general test of astro, just about the trading
idea you mentioned a few posts ago. I was presuming that you did a
similar compilation of "yes" and "no" cases to get an idea of how good
it was.
NW> Previously, I posted informatoin about a computer program that
NW> will test and do just about anything one could dream of in terms
NW> of testing Astrological pheneoma and the markets.
I remember your reference to this forthcoming program. Lacking that, I
was assuming you did evaluations by hand. Perhaps my assumption that
you did an evaluation was mistaken.
ztrader
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|