| PureBytes Links Trading Reference Links | | 
 
 Just a thought.   May be it makes sense to normalize Dow to 
CPI or smth. else to take inflation into account and after that conduct linear 
regression to estimate the fair value of Dow.   Best regards. Sergey.     
  ----- Original Message -----  Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:11 
  AM Subject: RE: [RT] 1929-1987 Spiral 
  Calendar Analog update 
 
  
   
  Reflecting on 
  your chart further.  Reversion to the mean applied to the Dow would be 
  reversion to the regression mean which means reversion to the linear 
  regression line that I anticipate is, again, probably in the 4000 
  vicinity.  And, of course, the overshoot of the regression line would be 
  lower?into the 3000s.  Good guess on my part about when the parabolic 
  move started. 
 Jim 
 
  
  From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com 
  [mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
  SergeyTSSent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:49 AM
 To: 
  realtraders@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [RT] 1929-1987 
  Spiral Calendar Analog update
 
    
  
  
  
  
  
  The 100 year 
  Dow is a trend line reflection of a straight line which is upward 
  sloping.  The last 30 years has been a parabolic move up and the current 
  level is likely 4000 points above the mean. 
  I believe this is the 
  result of modern monetary policy.  Parabolic trend has been ran 36 years 
  ago (flat currencies versus gold standard). 
  See Dow (black) 
  together with Consumer Price Index (red): 
  or Dow in logarithm 
  scale, it is still linear: 
  
 
    
    ----- Original Message 
    -----  
    Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:54 
    PM 
    Subject: RE: [RT] 1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog 
    update    
    
    Reversion 
    to the mean is a math concept that can be explained in many ways.  
    Suppose you had a population of 500 numbers ranging from 1 to 1000.  
    You?ve already put all 1000 of them in a computer and you know, without any 
    doubt whatsoever, the population?s mean is 500.  Well, you decide to 
    draw all 1000, one at a time and each time you average all the items  
    you?ve sampled to date.  Well, the first item drawn at random is a 
    10.  Well, that?s a 490 away from the mean.  The next time is a 
    590 so the sample average is (590 + 10) /2 = 300.  Well, your sample 
    mean is now a lot closer to the mean.  The next you pull is 990 so the 
    sample mean is (990 +590+10) /3 = 530.  Well, not only have you 
    ?reverted? to the mean, you?ve surpassed it.  And that?s a concept 
    implied by reversion to the mean.  Observations exceed or go past the 
    mean.   The 100 
    year Dow is a trend line reflection of a straight line which is upward 
    sloping.  The last 30 years has been a parabolic move up and the 
    current level is likely 4000 points above the mean.  Reversion to the 
    mean would imply the Dow would want to return to its long term 
    average.  But it also means that when there is an overshoot of the 
    mean.  If Dow wants to get to the straight line regression ?mean? at 
    4000 (I don?t know what the number is but 4000 is in the ballpark), then it 
    will likely exceed the regression line and go lower, 3000 or 2000.  
     What are 
    the probabilities?  Depends on your personal belief system.  
    Mandelbrot and Taleb conclusively proved that the market is not a ?random 
    walk? Gaussian coin toss.  Mandelbrot believes there?s a hidden order 
    to the market that exceeds human ?linear? thought to understand and allusion 
    to it can only be gleaned by fractal geometry.  In Taleb?s 
    calculations, the possibility of the 1987 crash was a 1 in 5000 lifetimes 
    (where a lifetime is the lifetime of the universe) possibility.  In 
    other words, it is infinitely impossible that 1987 occurred according to 
    Gaussian gaming or bell curve probability. So, if you 
    believe in Gaussian randomness, the answer is the next coin toss is a 50/50 
    probability.  If you believe there is order, the next toss is a 
    head.  If you believe in randomness, I believe the vast improbability 
    that the first two dates COULD NOT HAVE occurred.  Hence, I cautiously 
    believe the next two dates will occur.  It?s good enough for me to take 
    a levered short position (I like QQQQs so I have 2400 contracts or 240K 
    shares of November 38s and 5880 contracts of 37s).   My 
    positions are based on entirely unlikely events and I lose most of the 
    time.  The time I won was this time last year and I won enough that it 
    dwarfs all losses I?ve had in multiples of 10s.  I call it my Black 
    Swan Black Sholes strategy.  Black Sholes was created by Merton, Black, 
    and Sholes to project fair pricing for options.  The Gaussian 
    stochastic probability, as Mandelbrot proved rather conclusively in The 
    Misbehavior of Markets, dramatically underprices the risk of ?long tailed 
    events? in the bell curve; that far more of these long tailed events 
    (renamed by Taleb as Black Swan events) occur than thought.  And when 
    they occur, out of the money options pay far too much given their Black 
    Sholes pricing.  So, at the most critical points of the crisis last 
    year, there was question verbalized on CNBC by Joe Kernan as to whether the 
    organized CBOE options market could survive.  Of course it did, but 
    that?s the defect in Black Sholes.  And remember, the principals of 
    Titanic LTCM quant fund were none other than the brilliant quants who 
    developed Black Sholes (I hope I get this right), Fisher Black and Myron 
    Sholes.  The 1998 crisis that nearly melted the world economy was 
    created by the greatest of all bell curve quants.  So, I?ll take my 
    losses and try to find the Black Swan that dwarfs the losses in 
    leverage. Jim 
    
    From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com 
    [mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark 
    SimmsSent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:13 PM
 To: 
    realtraders@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: RE: [RT] 1929-1987 
    Spiral Calendar Analog update
    
    
    
    What about 
    "reversion to mean" theory ? IOW, although 
    100 heads in-a-row is POSSIBLE, what are the probabilities of it occurring 
    ? So, in this 
    case, what are the probabilities of 5 heads in-a-row occurring 
    ? Just a 
    thought..... 
      
       
 From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com 
      [mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim 
      RossSent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:39 PM
 To: 
      realtraders@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: RE: [RT] 
      1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update
    
      
      Nassim 
      Taleb posed exactly that question in his book The Black Swan.  The 
      question was put to the MIT quant and Guido the street wise bookie as 
      such: This is a 
      FAIR coin and FAIR coin toss and it has resulted in four heads in a 
      row. The quant 
      said ?Of course not, the fifth trial is an entirely independent event and 
      the probability is 50/50.? Guido 
      said.  ?It?ll be a heads.  Yas jest can?t flip four heads in a 
      row.  The game?s rigged.  It?ll be a heads.?  The 
      question is whether there?s a hidden order in time and space.  Benoit 
      Mandelbrot, the greatest mathematician of our lifetime IMO and the 
      discoverer of the Mandelbrot set, would say there is a hidden order.  
      But it isn?t a Gausian ?bellcurve? order; its not a gaming coin toss 
      population of events .  It is not linear and likely we will never 
      discover it.  Our only glimpse of it will be through fractal 
      geometry. Jim 
       
      
      From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com 
      [mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
      GerryBSent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:08 PM
 To: 
      realtraders@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [RT] 
      1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update
    
      
      
      
 Now, consider that the model HAS SUCCESSFULLY predicted the 
      first two
 out of the four dates?  Does that make the improbable 
      less improbable?
 I know it does, but by how much.  About 
      that I don?t have a clue.  But,
 again, it is 
      interesting.
 
 SAY YOU FLIP A COIN 4 TIMES IN A ROW AND IT COMES UP
 HEADS...........DOES THAT INCRECREASE THE PROBABILITY THAT ON THE 
      NEXT
 FLIP IT WILL NOT BE HEADS?.................OR DOES IT 
      REMAIN THE SAME:
 50/50 AS IN THE FIRST 4 
      CASES?????
 
 GERRYB
 
 __._,_.___
 ![]()  
 
 __,_._,___
 | 
 |