|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
"It is funny that those who espouse a totally scientific approach fail to
realize that almost every time the theorist enters the market he usually
goes broke. "
Yet another absolutely unsubstantiated statement. "Almost every time the
theorist enters the market he usually goes broke" Ira obviously has access
to the mindset of everyone who enters the market, whether or not they are a
theorist and how successful they are. Could you point me to one publication
which can verify this statement? What is the definition of "almost every
time", how often is "usually goes broke".
dave
ps I certainly stirred up something with my "R-points". Again I am not
attacking any particular methodology or person. I am just asking that if we
are to gain maximum benefit from belonging to such a forum that we have some
basis for backing what we propound. Statements such as the one above really
are not helpful since meaningful discussion is just replaced by a slanging
match . And I don't think I or anyone else has suggested that statistics are
infallible - but they are a lot better than NO statistics
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ira Tunik" <irat@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] DA moon and Delta
> It is funny that those who espouse a totally scientific approach fail to
> realize that almost every time the theorist enters the market he usually
goes
> broke. Look at the major funds that have gone bust on derivatives. Their
> tested scientific theory, standard deviations, and probabilities cost them
> billions. So science is not the only answer to the markets and statistics
> can be as misleading as anything else. As they say, garbage in, garbage
out.
>
> DH wrote:
>
> > > Trading is not about perfect science.
> >
> > Nothing is perfect but, if more traders adopted a rigorous scientific
> > attitude, there wouldn't be so many people losing money and unable to
> > understand why.
> >
> > > Each information input should be
> > > viewed as incremental and cumulative.
> >
> > That's where, with all due respect, we disagree. We are all constantly
> > bombarded with far more information than we can use. Much of it is
> > contradictory and much of it is irrelevant. The trick is to learn to
> > ignore information that doesn't significantly contribute to the bottom
> > line. There is a whole field of engineering called digital signal
> > processing where the goal is to discard irrelevant information and only
> > keep what is important. Examples include radar imaging, photo
> > enhancement, removing the static from an audio recording, using seismic
> > data for oil exploration, etc.
> >
> > How often have you seen a trader with a dozen indicators on his screen
> > and he can't decide what to do? Give him one pretty good indicator and
> > he will at least be able to make a decision. It may be right or it may
> > be wrong but he won't sit there, paralyzed, unable to pull the trigger.
> >
> > IMHO, injecting mysticism into the decision-making process makes the
> > picture less clear, not more clear. Trading ain't rocket science but we
> > could learn a thing or three from the rocket scientists about how they
> > approach problems.
> >
> > --
> > Dennis
> >
> > 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/
>
>
> 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/
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.255 / Virus Database: 128 - Release Date: 5/20/2001
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/
|