|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Friday, June 01, 2001, 9:58:38 PM, Ira Tunik wrote:
IT> I have read this post and find that there is much to be said in its
IT> favor. There is no system that will withstand scrutiny. There is no
IT> set of numbers, correct calls, or bottom line exposures that will prove
IT> you right.
I'm not sure what 'right' is, but there are system traders who can
produce numerical results that others can duplicate. Some of these do
better than 'chance' (not to start another discussion of what 'chance'
means). :-)
IT> The problem is not with the system, it is with the party executing
IT> the system.
This is always true, but it has nothing to do with the 'stats' of a
SINGLE component of a system. It is important to distinguish analysis
of a single component from an overall trading system. Many people
don't do this. When asked for stats on a single idea, they respond
with predictions for an overall trading system - two completely
different animals.
IT> If someone believes that the action of the planets can influence
IT> the market, he/she will find justification in it.
If it is a simple calculation, it can be tested as a separate idea,
not part of an overall system.
IT> I am sure that Norman uses something other then pure astro to
IT> enter and exit his trades. He may say that certain action of the
IT> planets will impact Beans, wheat or hogs, but I am betting that
IT> there is something else that will trigger his entry or exit from
IT> the trade.
True, even by his own admission. However, this still leaves open the
possibility to test the individual components of an overall system,
one at a time.
At this point, though, it is important to distinguish 'world views'.
Some will say 'I believe that' because it sounds plausible. Others
will say 'show me the stats'. What is 'proof' to one camp is NOT
'proof' to others. This difference seems to cause much strife.
IT> Asking for an explanation is fine, bad mouthing is just a tool of
IT> those with closed minds.
Perhaps. It might also be a matter of language style, 'upbringing',
and ???. I have seen good examples of people who are VERY open minded
but terribly crude.
IT> Calling the party who put it forth a fraud or charlatan is wrong,
IT> I believe.
I believe there are some genuine charlatans, that do deserve to be
called a fraud. This business has a lot. :-)
IT> You expose someone with facts, not accusations.
What is a 'fact' to a 'religious' trader is NOT a 'fact' to a
'science' trader.
It is MUCH easier to be a pure 'religious' trader - one simply has to
say "I believe it, therefore it is". The 'science' trader must go
through a lot of hard work to verify it through technical means before
it becomes a 'fact'.
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/
|