Is any prediction doomed? - page 15

New comment
 
moskitman:
Well, if you don't see it, you just don't want to see it. I've traded extra depot load for reliable trading signals and I'm fine with that. I have previously abandoned the notion of "detecting a reversal" as a one-currency atavism. If I see a "tension" created by the foundation in the market, I enter the market with a big amount of orders to its liquidation. By this time I already know who "wants" to go where, which is usually enough to balance the order basket positively.
The point is that it is as unrewarding to find multicurrency voltages by an imaginary overbought/oversold condition as it is in the case of a single pair.
 
HideYourRichess:
And how do you cross an intersection? Everything has already been said, all you have to do is think about it, and agree or disagree.


Fuck, I need this finger-pointing explanation...

OK, I'll try it - I'm crossing an intersection at a green traffic light. Why? Because when I cross on green, I estimate my chances of being hit by a car are lower than when I cross on red (probability, bollocks). I have discovered this pattern and I predict that my crossing the intersection at a green light is more likely to end successfully than my crossing at a red light.

 
Avals:

I guess it's a question of distinguishing patterns from pseudo-laws. Like the classic example of teachers of statistics - the correlation between the number of babies born and the number of stork population :)


If you have observed this pattern over a long enough period of time, what prevents you from using it? The feeling that money earned in this way is "wrong"?

Victor Nidderhoffer is a prominent trader and multi-millionaire. He describes in his book the correlation between a country's level of wealth and the length of its butts. He uses this.

Also in his book he describes the correlation between price movements in the financial markets and the migration of elephants in Africa. And he uses this too in trading. And successfully

 
FAGOTT:


Fuck, I'm getting these explanations on my fingers...

OK, I'll try it - I'm crossing an intersection at a green traffic light. Why? Because when I cross on green, I estimate my chances of being hit by a car are lower than when I cross on red (probability, bollocks). I have discovered this pattern and I predict that my crossing the intersection at a green light is more likely to end successfully than my crossing at a red light.

Am I correct in assuming that in order to cross you do not do a Fourier analysis of successful past crossings at the junction?
 
FAGOTT:


If you have been observing this pattern for a long period of time, what prevents you from using it? The feeling that the money earned in this way is "wrong"?

Victor Nidderhoffer is a prominent trader and multi-millionaire. He describes in his book the correlation between a country's level of wealth and the length of its butts. He uses this.

Also in his book he describes the correlation between price movements in the financial markets and the migration of elephants in Africa. And he uses this too in trading. And successfully.

You have misunderstood Nidderhoffer, what he uses from the fact of the length of butts. Until I started reading a lot about those times, I didn't get the point either.
 
HideYourRichess:
Am I correct in assuming that in order to cross you do not do a Fourier analysis of successful past crossings?


And who knows how exactly this neural network in the brain works? The pattern is there, it has been detected and I make predictions based on it.

But how do I separate the two concepts? Make a prediction without a pattern? Based on what? How?

You have detected a pattern in the market, but based on it, you cannot make predictions about the price dynamics. How to use it in trading?

 
HideYourRichess:
You misunderstood Nidderhoffer to be using from the fact of the length of butts. Until I started reading a lot about those times, I didn't get the point either.


Too lazy to even pull out the quotes again. I'm about to go on another 10 pages of verbiage like Schwager.

The La Bagola effect definitely applies. Elephants are financial markets. The storks are nervously smoking.

 
FAGOTT:


I'm too lazy to even pull out the quotes again. It's about to get another 10 pages of verbiage like Schwager.

The La Bagola effect definitely applies. Elephants are financial markets. The storks are the stooges.

Well, lazy is lazy. Indeed, it's much easier to come up with something you can fantasise about.
 

HideYourRichess:

Schwager's. No one there calculates any probabilities or makes any predictions (in the sense used here).

They don't make predictions? How do you mean? Do they enter at random? Or they look for an entry, which predicts a price movement in the right direction?
 
FAGOTT:


And who knows how exactly this neural network in the brain works? The pattern is there, it has been detected and I make predictions based on it.

Don't use the word "prediction". Use the word "inference". "Prediction" is uncertainty, "the will of chance". "Inference" can be formalised. Additional conditions can be imposed on it. "Seamless" crossing the street is not for professionals. A professional pedestrian will look around 10 times more, rather than rely on chance, reading a newspaper on the go when crossing. All he has to do is continue to comply with the "look left" and "look right" conditions. Such a pedestrian is difficult to hit. Practically impossible - he can bounce away (... though... 'if the Chukcha didn't open the door - the old lady would leave').
1...8910111213141516171819202122...43
New comment
Reason: