Classical thechanalysis doesn't work any more. What works, maybe quantum? - page 13
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
- In Japan,you can order a doll of your boss and tell the boss (doll) everything you want and even punch him in the face at home.Traders also need a psychotherapeutic outlet. No, they do not beat up anyone and do not punch anyone (although I would like to.) They invented forums for that, where they just badmouth the TA. And if, while doing so, they refer to two Nobel laureates ......, the pleasure is mine!)
You did not give an answer as to what data was used. You wrote that it was not prices and that it was not tick volumes. I informed you that there is simply nothing else on the market. Therefore your results are questionable.
I repeat. Signals and their results. For example, signals (buy // sell) are generated on a system. We investigate these signals and their results (profit // loss). For analysis the entire market is divided into N quanta, in my case 512, but there can be any number of them - it is up to the researcher to decide. Then, for each quantum I will investigate trade channels (in my case 25-2000). The investigation is not over yet since it takes about 16 hours to calculate one quantum on i7 965. But we can already say in advance that for each quantum there is a trading channel where we make profit.
What I don't like about quantum analysis is analysis time itself. Surely something faster can be created. But what?
Repeat. Signals and their results. For example, some system generates signals (buy // sell). These signals and their results (profit // loss) are investigated. For analysis the entire market is divided into N quanta, in my case 512, but there can be any number of them - it is up to the researcher to decide. Then, for each quantum I will investigate trade channels (in my case 25-2000). The investigation is not over yet since it takes about 16 hours to calculate one quantum on i7 965. But we can already say in advance that for each quantum there is a trading channel where we make profit.
What I don't like about quantum analysis is analysis time itself. Surely something faster can be created. But what?
Where are the signals coming from, is it from space? Don't you understand? What data are you using? What kind of market, after all?
So...? "If Comrade Warrant Officer says crocodiles fly, then they fly, but only low and low". So the TA doesn't work for mathematicians, but it does for non-mathematicians?
I haven't looked at his tax returns, but from what I hear Black had his own hedge fund, kind of successful. Here's a history of the ups and downs of his fellow Scholz - here - not a childish trading fellow at all.
The original post by Swinosaurs was about "underlings and mithrophanes" who deny TA, I gave a list of members. Or rather just the very beginning of a very long list.
Update: Black was a partner at Goldman Sachs, an organisation not known for theoretical developments.
Goldman Sachs, it kind of felt great without Black and I think will continue to feel. The point is that the mathematician Black is not a pillar and the basis of GS's success. The backbone of GS is the traders. Of course it is not about traders being smarter or somehow cooler than mathematicians. It's just that these mathematicians are out of touch with the market reality, so Nobel prizes are not an indicator of quality.
So Scholtes, so what. But Comrade Markovec and his results are what?
Of course, Taleb didn't write about him, but let's compare the facts:
My point was that neither Black nor Scholz were merely theorists, as HidingHisWelfare tried to portray them. And who invited him where and for what - I don't know, maybe it was the missing CPSU gold.
By the way, I wasn't even trying to say that TA doesn't work - God save me from these religious wars of the obtuse with the pointy-headed. I gave a list of those who denied TA and yet cannot be called mithrophanous in any way.
So Scholtes, so what. But Comrade Markovec and his results are what?
How's what? Did Markowitz also coolly merge?
Wikipedia states that he is now an adviser to hedge fund fund Riverview Alternative Investment Advisors, LLC. Which would be logical to expect based on his interest in building an optimal portfolio. He is also an adviser to several other investment companies. That is to say, he is not a pure theoretician either.
My point was that neither Black nor Scholz were merely theorists, as HidingHisWelfare tried to portray them. And I don't know who invited him where and for what, maybe it was the missing CPSU gold.
By the way, I wasn't even trying to say that TA doesn't work - God save me from these religious wars of the obtuse with the pointy-headed. I gave a list of those who have denied TA and who cannot in any way be described as mithrophanous.
HidingHisGoodness is not the correct translation.
My point is that mathematicians who try to argue about the market and have Nobel prizes are not authorities on the subject of classical methods. They themselves are nobody in the trade and have no name for them.
And Black and Scholz fall well within the statistical margin of luck.
What's up? Is Markowitz also a big bust?
Wikipedia states that he is now an adviser to hedge fund fund Riverview Alternative Investment Advisors, LLC. Which would be logical to expect, based on his interest in building an optimal portfolio. He is also an adviser to several other investment companies. That is to say, he is not a pure theoretician either.
You can't call him a practitioner either. You'd better do some research on the practical application of his theory and how much better it is than just throwing darts.
Start the list of those who think TA doesn't work: Sharpe, Markowitz, Miller, Black, Scholz - all Nobel laureates, Traynor, Cox, Ross, Rubenstein, Fama and French. And these are just the world-renowned founding classics who have a huge number of followers. I wish I could join the club, but I'm not old enough yet.
Did they all write that TA doesn't work? Sharpe, Markowitz, Miller, Black, Scholz all wrote that TA doesn't work?
Hiding Your Wealth is not the right translation.
My point is that mathematicians who try to argue about the market and have Nobel prizes are not authorities on the subject of classical methods. They themselves are nobody in the trade and have no name for them.
And Black and Scholz fall perfectly within the statistical margin of luck.
"Wrong translation" - "not" is capitalised.
Von and Markowitz seem to fall into the lucky lane. If you start checking, I think there are a lot of lucky people out there. But the question is not about them, they are just the beginning of the list, they are followed by those who use their ideas in practice and the number is legion.
By the way, I wanted to ask for a long time but was too shy to ask: what are classical TA methods? And if they are so classical, surely they can be checked by statistical methods.