Forget random quotes - page 36
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
Cool. Sort of a robot factory)))
I managed to write a robot generator. Now in the process of launching it. We'll shoot the redundant ones (the nervous ones and the plummers), the rest will trade).
...although if you put good logic and soul into it, it might work.
The thing is, Alexey, that here (in this kind of "definitions") there is a clear substitution of concepts, as in a crooked mirror.
The category of efficiency has great theoretical and practical value - the general theory of systems is engaged in this area, there is such a direction. So, knowing what's what in this field, I can clearly see the absurdity and upside down in the fiefdom of "market efficiency/inefficiency".
Faa took offence at me, for some reason taking my criticism of such definitions as an attack on him personally, and in vain.
One of his main arguments in support of these "market miracles" is the following: "1000000 traders all over the world use it, so it's right".
What can be said about it ...
A herd of 1,000 sheep, led by a shepherd to the slaughter, walks... and each of them must be thinking in the same way "1000 of my fellows are going, so it must be so, and if I have any doubts, I cannot be right, because everyone is going, so it must be right" .... This is one side of the coin, so to speak, one truth. But there is another side of the coin, another truth - the truth of a shepherd leading the sheep to slaughter, he has his own expediency.
Now, where I'm going with this... And to the point that such 'shifter definitions' are probably not accidentally shifters....
Well, I think the sensible one has had enough.
Attacking me personally is not an insult but a statement of fact that the opponent is incapable of saying anything of substance and therefore it is pointless to deal with such an opponent. But that's just saying.
.
Once again you are talking about issues with which you are not familiar. The efficient market is not just a joke definition, but an entire theory.
The efficient market has, until recently, been the mainstream of economic science. The "herd of sheep" you deigned to mention has a bunch of Nobels, not to mention other "jerks" like the Chicago School and other, other, other .....
From the very beginning (since the 30's) this idea has been questioned by matstatisticians(econometricians). This criticism came from two perspectives:
the very notion of an "efficient market", pointing out that a descriptive definition is practically impossible and does not exist in real economics
a clear overstatement in the application of the methods of matstatistics, which were used in the construction of the efficient market theory.
After the 1987 crisis there was not just a massive attack on supporters of the efficient market, but a massive departure from this idea. In recent years, theoretical works that would not recognize the thick tails and fractal nature of the market (fractional integration) simply can not be found.
.
And whether your knowledge of general systems theory and TAR can be applied to the market is a question. At one time, the ideas of the Institute of Systems Analysis were very useful for the general development of people working in economics. Particularly from systems analysis: the first kind of error in systems analysis is solving the wrong problem with the right methods. This site is full of such examples. From all your posts I did not see the formulation of the problem, while the fact that no one uses your right methods on the market is just a very bad sign, especially in our country, in which TAU in Soviet times reached the highest heights in the world and there are many specialists, which in this degraded country is simply not needed and could apply their knowledge for personal enrichment. But no. If you succeed, I will be the first to congratulate you. But even on the bench, I was taught about the limitations of TAU and then I was convinced many times that it was right. So I'm sure you won't succeed.
And why? Today there is a huge theory with a large set of ready-made tools in the form of debugged code. The applicability and limitations of it all are known. There are a lot of people who are solving the problems that were not solved yesterday. The theory and practice are developing normally. You just have time.
.
And there is only one problem, like Matroskin's - not enough brains.
The personal attacks on me are not an insult but a statement of fact...
And the only problem is like Matroskin's - not enough brains.
Not a theory, odlramzzl, but the efficient market hypothesis!
"And why? There is now a huge theory with a large set of ready-made tools in the form of fine-tuned code. The applicability and limitations of it all are known. There are plenty of people who are solving problems which were not solved yesterday. The theory and practice are developing normally. Only time is running out."- no one is making any money........
Not a theory, odlramzzl, but the efficient market hypothesis!
"And why? There is now a huge theory with a large set of ready-made tools in the form of a fine-tuned code. The applicability and limitations of it all are known. There are plenty of people solving problems that were not solved yesterday. The theory and practice are developing normally. Only time is running out."- no one is making any money........
no one is making any money........
Do not generalise your experience. Be modest, be modest. Read books, learn programming code and then you will be able to argue on the merits at forums, and then, you'll get rich. That's how life will go.
And about grails - it's to Templars or Masons, I can't give the exact address.
As for grails, that's for the Templars, or Freemasons, I can't give you the exact address.
Templars, Freemasons, Rosencreutzers, Econometricians are not my thing, thank you.
P.S. I've never heard of anyone getting rich on forex with the help of econometrics. But there are lots of articles and books......... And threads on the forum!
I would also like to defend the EMH, which has been so ruthlessly abused. But there is no denying that the market is efficient to a certain extent. By efficiency I do not mean a strict definition of EMH, dividing it into weak, strong, etc. We can judge market efficiency at least by the degree of its entropy or indistinguishability, at least visually, from a random rambling whose entropy is maximal. The market is efficient - that is a fact. The question is how much it conforms to the random walk model. I think it is 95-97%. This is a good indicator, because it becomes possible to use the classic statistical apparatus to measure it. Everything from Simple Moving Average to abstruse regression functions is based on this 97% one way or another, hence the EMH concept is used. It sort of ties together the methods we use and the object of the study. Yes, it is not enough to make money, but knowing the statistical apparatus of 97% of the market, you can already get closer to the 3%, which allows you to make money on it.