|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I used TA to confirm what I see in the market.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mark H" <amibroker@xxx> wrote:
>
> TA works because of people like you who don't believe in TA. There
are no secrets. "Everyone gets what they want from the market".
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: loveyourenemynow
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:40 PM
> Subject: [amibroker] TA secrets ...
>
>
> Did I refer anywhere to ¨"economic data"?
> Do you know what is econophysics?
>
> Can you find me link to a study (in scientific sense) about
> predictivity of T/A?
> All you can find is "one indicator by itself is not enough ...",
so
> all the times it does not work people forget about it
>
> I do not use T/A, I just wrote and backtested some simple trading
> system to get a statistical measure of its predictivity, and
found
> that it all depends on the optimization of the parameters, you
can get
> any system to work cheating and overfitting it
>
> good luck with T/A and please leave some profit to not T/A
traders..
>
> If after 30 years t/a is around nobody provided a serious study
to
> support it the reason must clearly be they want to keep it
secret so
> just few enlightened traders can benefit from it .....
>
> Why all these t/a gurus waste their time teaching on line or
selling
> course or signals using t/a (loosing the secret ..) instead of
> applying it?
> Ok I know !! They are enlightened, and they want to help
humanity ..
> to realize their Buddha ta/ nature
>
> Greetings from a an unenlightened trader walking in the darkness
>
> Ly
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <ftonetti@> wrote:
> >
> > Economic data LAGS markets ... This can clearly be seen by
viewing
> > both price and fiscal data over centuries ... So if someone
thinks
> > they can get decent results using economic data then they're
in for a
> > long road to nowhere ...
> >
> > As far as T/A goes ... How long have you attempted to use T/A
without
> > some form of success ?
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "loveyourenemynow"
> > <loveyourenemynow@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > thank for the interesting link.
> > > Not random walk just means that models based on the random
walk
> > > hypothesis (gaussian distribution of the stochastic
component) are
> > not
> > > accurate. It does not mean technical analysis is successfully
> > > predicting market evolution, but that other models (not
random walk,
> > > not necessarily and I would add quite likely not technical
analysis)
> > > can be more successful.
> > > By the way the two authors are not Princeton Professors
> > (MIT,Pennstate
> > > I think), and are not physicist but economists , and looking
at the
> > > Nature article you link to, they do not seem to like
econophysics
> > that
> > > much ...
> > > Econophysics papers are freely available on
http://xxx.lanl.gov,
> > but i
> > > guess economist do not even read them, I personally like them
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ly
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "dalengo" <dalengo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This Princeton study shows on simple examples that price
changes
> > are
> > > > not random:
> > > > A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street
> > > > Andrew W. Lo and A. Craig MacKinlay
> > > > free text at http://press.princeton.edu/books/lo/
> > > > One should not be a Princeton professor to know that,
members of
> > > > this board do know that, but still...
> > > > There is an interesting synopsis on physicists turned to
market
> > > > 'dynamics' in Nature (London) magazine:
> > > >
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415010a.html
> > > > They rediscover the same non-random nature of the market.
> > > > See also the Mathematics of Gambling by Ed Thorp
> > > > (free at) http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/tog.htm
> > > > to see how one can use stat. anomalies in pricing to get
some
> > 10^$.
> > > >
> > > > cheers-- alex
> > > >
> > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "cstrader"
<cstrader232@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Although I very much hate to say it, I am indeed
skeptical that
> > > > there are
> > > > > any technical systems that work consistently. I am also
> > convinced
> > > > (see Ly's
> > > > > argument) that if technical analysis ever did work, it
works
> > less
> > > > well now
> > > > > than it did in the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to hear from any technical trader who can
provide
> > a
> > > > complete
> > > > > and independently verified list (for instance on
> > > > www.timertrac.com) of his
> > > > > or her trades that show a profit that beats some
benchmark (say
> > > > sp500) over
> > > > > a consecutive period of 3 recent years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ly, can you explain why volatility analysis is different
than
> > > > technical
> > > > > analysis? Can you give examples of volatility systems
that
> > might
> > > > be
> > > > > useful? Also, can you explain your statement regarding
> > > > the "correlation
> > > > > between volumes and prices?"
> > > > >
> > > > > One example of a volatility-based system that may be
successful
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > "fasttrack" approach (see for instance
> > > > > http://www.greenmountainaccess.net/~wwgansz/.
> > > > >
> > > > > really enjoying the thread!
> > > > >
> > > > > chuck
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Tom Tom" <michel_b_g@>
> > > > > To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:50 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: Random Walk - step 2 - :
> > > > Predicitable ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Bman,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure there is psychological and human behaviour in
this game,
> > > > and it has
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be considered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the financial instition should say us "yes it is
> > > > predictable"... so we
> > > > > > put all our money on the market for them. If they
say, "it is
> > > > random walk"
> > > > > > people will leave the market and give less money to it.
> > > > > > It need to be balanced i think...maybe yes maybe not,
so
> > mystery
> > > > is keep
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > financial institution have maximum cards to play in
their
> > hand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I aggree 100% with Chuck about this line "technical
analysis
> > has
> > > > not been
> > > > > > validated in controlled studies"...
> > > > > > It is true, i have never read (if someone know where
to find,
> > i
> > > > am very
> > > > > > interrested, thx) a clean scientific demonstration
about
> > winning
> > > > trading
> > > > > > system... nor an old mechanical trader publish any
trading
> > > > reconstruction
> > > > > > based on real trade winned by his trading system and
showing
> > > > precise
> > > > > > reports
> > > > > > and indicator used... and it frighten me sometimes,
because
> > > > maybe after
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > the winner we show us are only a small part of the
people
> > which
> > > > take a big
> > > > > > risk and win (big risk = big return if lucky = good
> > trader ?).
> > > > Those who
> > > > > > take a big risk and did'nt win are no more here.
> > > > > > Statically, on all the trader over the world, their is
some
> > who
> > > > can be
> > > > > > lucky
> > > > > > and win 10 years , 20 or more consecutive years... few
> > people...
> > > > but
> > > > > > possible. Are their technics consistent ? Do they
adapt their
> > > > technics
> > > > > > over
> > > > > > the time ? (so profit cannot be consistent because we
cannot
> > for
> > > > sure have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > good trading system everytime).
> > > > > > Why not a book on a big trading looser ? : )) so
trader (bad
> > or
> > > > good)
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > make money not by trading but by publishing book héhé.
> > > > > > YES we can make money on the market it is a fact, but
we have
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > very...
> > > > > > very... very carrefull i think if we want it to be
consitent
> > > > over the
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > > The hard compromises we face is : Commission / Returns
and
> > > > Risk / Profit
> > > > > > expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Their is are two book on the subject, i find the title
funny :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1- A random walk down wall street, by Burton G. Malkiel
> > > > > > http://people.brandeis.edu/~yanzp/Study%20Notes/A%
20Random%
> > > > 20Walk%20down%20Wall%20Street.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2- A non-random walk down wall street, bu Andrew W.Lo
and A.
> > > > Craig
> > > > > > MacKinlay
> > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Non-Random-Walk-Down-Wall-
> > > > Street/dp/0691092567
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It show well the problem.
> > > > > > I did'nt read the first one (just the abstract)
> > > > > > I just read fastly thez second one. Very good, go deep
in the
> > > > problem with
> > > > > > mathematic backgound to show assumption which are made
inside.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First one say from its abstarct : "this is random
walk, and
> > all
> > > > that we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > do is good managing of risk"
> > > > > > Second one say : "this is not random walk because
volatility
> > > > don't follow
> > > > > > random walk model"
> > > > > > All seems about volatility :
> > > > > > First one : risk managment = manage portfolio gievn
the
> > > > volatility
> > > > > > (=risk).
> > > > > > Second one : volatility is not random
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So to go deep on the subject :
> > > > > > Does someones here make pure volatility based trading
system
> > on
> > > > Amibroker
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > Can we have his feeling about that ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Mich.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: brpnw1
> > > > > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: Random Walk - step 2 - :
> > Predicitable ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact that people make consistent money off the
stock
> > market
> > > > is
> > > > > > evidence that the markets are not random. It appears
that
> > self-
> > > > > > purported "experts" who likely work for large
financial firms
> > > > will
> > > > > > go to great lengths to use data to help people forget
that the
> > > > > > markets are not random -- of course it's not random,
because
> > > > people
> > > > > > are making consistent wins off the market, using
technical
> > > > analysis.
> > > > > > People such as John Ehlers, for example, who have
created
> > black
> > > > box
> > > > > > mehods that will always profit from the market,
without any
> > human
> > > > > > intervention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These financial firms have everything to gain by
> > demonstrating
> > > > that
> > > > > > technical analysis is an illusion. They want to handle
your
> > > > money so
> > > > > > they can make their profits. Don't ever believe them.
They
> > want
> > > > you
> > > > > > to ride out the long-term dips in the market without
ever
> > moving
> > > > > > your money. They make more money if you don't move
your
> > money.
> > > > The
> > > > > > compliance portion of the financial industry goes to
greath
> > > > lengths
> > > > > > to make sure that once they have your money, very few
people
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > financial world can actually use technical analysis to
make
> > you
> > > > > > regular profits. Try getting a job as a financial
planner,
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > > > your ability to make people money using technical
analysis --
> > > > you'll
> > > > > > never get near a desk at any firm. They don't want you
to
> > > > contradict
> > > > > > the BS that they feed the masses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order for financial firms to make money off you,
they have
> > to
> > > > > > make you lose money. Somebody always loses in the
stock
> > market.
> > > > They
> > > > > > just want to make sure it's you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So continue to seek out technical analysis to make
consistent
> > > > gains
> > > > > > in the market. Regularly read articles written by
people who
> > are
> > > > > > already doing this successfully, so you don't lose
track of
> > > > reality,
> > > > > > since the financial firms are rich enough to produce a
very
> > > > > > convincing BS argument.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~Bman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "cstrader" ...>
wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Hi Tom Tom:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Yes, an interesting article. I was particularly
intrigued by
> > this
> > > > > > line:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>"technical analysis has not been validated in
controlled
> > > > studies "
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Is there any evidence that what we are trying to do
might ever
> > > > > > work? How
> > > > > >>could we prove that it does?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>chuck
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Tom" ...>
> > > > > >>To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:12 PM
> > > > > >>Subject: [amibroker] Random Walk - step 2 - :
Predicitable ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > To go on dicussion about random walk, nice article
at the
> > > > middle
> > > > > > of this
> > > > > >> > page :
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411georw.htm
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Combine: Random Walk and Prediction.
> > > > > >> > Technical analysis... usefull ? Financial
information ...
> > > > > > usefull ? Even
> > > > > >> > illegal information (hidden to public) .. usefull ?
Last
> > one
> > > > > > maybe.
> > > > > >> > Others,
> > > > > >> > humm....
> > > > > >> > This is what about deals this article.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > For me, next theory could be a Chaotic Fractal Near-
Random
> > > > > > Walk... : ))
> > > > > >> > Chaotic : because spurious peak in the data wich
can
> > initiate
> > > > > > further
> > > > > >> > mouvment
> > > > > >> > Fractal : year, month, day, hour, minute, sec...
same
> > patterns
> > > > > >> > Near-Random Walk : Random Walk but predictable,
because i
> > > > don't
> > > > > > think
> > > > > >> > price
> > > > > >> > move randomly...
> > > > > >> > If they move randomly... tehnical or fundamental
analysis
> > are
> > > > > > useless, so
> > > > > >> > there is no mean to try to trade at all, (only to
give
> > > > > > commission to the
> > > > > >> > broker héhé).
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Seriously, from this article, what seems emerging
from last
> > > > > > years, is that
> > > > > >> > price is random walk, but volatility maybe not...
It is
> > well
> > > > > > explained in
> > > > > >> > the article. Arch and Garch model are mentionned.
> > > > > >> > Someone try this on AB ? Trade based only about
volatility
> > > > > > prediction (so
> > > > > >> > predict risk, and manage portfolio depending those
> > prediction
> > > > > > about
> > > > > >> > volatility)... and so don't bother with the price
random-
> > > > walk ?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > Mich
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
__________________________________________________________
> > > > > >> > Les révélations de la starac 6 commentées par
Jérémy!
> > > > > >> > http://starac2006.spaces.live.com/
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please note that this group is for discussion
between
> > users
> > > > only.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail
> > directly
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always
check
> > > > DEVLOG:
> > > > > >> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > For other support material please check also:
> > > > > >> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Windows Live Messenger sur i-modeT : dialoguez avec
vos amis
> > > > depuis votre
> > > > > > mobile comme sur PC !
> > http://mobile.live.fr/messenger/bouygues/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between
users
> > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail
directly
> > to
> > > > > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always
check
> > DEVLOG:
> > > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For other support material please check also:
> > > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/568 - Release Date: 12/4/2006 3:20 PM
|