Technical analysis

[The Don]

.....<snip>......

Not what was asked for.

We have no idea whether these are all your "trades" or just the ones that you have cherrypicked because they worked out (the rest having been discarded because you didn't really mean to do them).

It is possible that you are the finest Technician in the history of the market but if I was I wouldn't waste my time on internet forums and would instead beg, steal or borrow the seed money to get me trading for real.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, I'm interested to see the experiment repeated live. If true, it should be easily repeatable. You should be more than happy to demonstrate without using your prior results.

 

[The Don]

The key here is to realise no one has attempted an answer to the question in the OP, yet thread drift is requiring me to make you all rich. And I won't even know.
I said I was not trying to sell something.
I just asked a question.
Please one of you Skeptics answer it. (admittedly Scrutiniser did).

IMO Several people have answered your question (highlighted below)

The world is reluctant to believe price history alone contains sufficient information to construct a fiscal winning strategy.
Therefore I logged into the real time information using a saxo platform simulator.
I traded the emini snp for 6 months, and exclusive of brokerage, took an account from 100k to 200k $A. I have a graph showing max drawdown of 20k.

Does anyone believe me?

Disclosure of interest, I have followed it closely since 1984.

It's against the MA to directly accuse someone of lying so if anyone had answered that they did not believe you, you could have reported them and got them a yellow card (or, depending on their disciplinary history a suspension or I guess possibly even a ban).

IMO a number of posters have given the same answer which is that they are skeptical that you have a system based on Technical Analysis which allows you to inerrantly predict the market and reliably generate 100% returns every 6 months. Their reasons for doing this include:

• There are armies of really smart "Quants" out there and whilst it's not impossible that someone in some bank somewhere has fallen on a similar method to your own, it is unlikely
• A lot of people claim to be able to beat the market reliably, almost all of them fail to do so in the long run (in another thread two people were named Warren Buffett and some fund manager from the 80's/90's and the second of those only outperformed the market by a wafer thin margin).
• We've had prior experience of posters just as convinced as you whose methods collapse under closer examination. Your caginess is understandable if you believe you have a working model but without the model we have no independent assessment of its effectiveness
• The fact that you're willing to publicise your results and that you're unwilling (or unable) to actually put the model into practice using real money
  may not in themselves be damning but they seem to run counter to what most people would do if they could beat the market (keep quiet and get on with beating the market)

They have gone on to explain that it doesn't mean that you're lying but it could be that you've had an extraordinary run of luck and/or you're selectively reviewing your results.

 

[Samson]

IMO Several people have answered your question (highlighted below)



It's against the MA to directly accuse someone of lying so if anyone had answered that they did not believe you, you could have reported them and got them a yellow card (or, depending on their disciplinary history a suspension or I guess possibly even a ban).

IMO a number of posters have given the same answer which is that they are skeptical that you have a system based on Technical Analysis which allows you to inerrantly predict the market and reliably generate 100% returns every 6 months. Their reasons for doing this include:

• There are armies of really smart "Quants" out there and whilst it's not impossible that someone in some bank somewhere has fallen on a similar method to your own, it is unlikely
• A lot of people claim to be able to beat the market reliably, almost all of them fail to do so in the long run (in another thread two people were named Warren Buffett and some fund manager from the 80's/90's and the second of those only outperformed the market by a wafer thin margin).
• We've had prior experience of posters just as convinced as you whose methods collapse under closer examination. Your caginess is understandable if you believe you have a working model but without the model we have no independent assessment of its effectiveness
• The fact that you're willing to publicise your results and that you're unwilling (or unable) to actually put the model into practice using real money
  may not in themselves be damning but they seem to run counter to what most people would do if they could beat the market (keep quiet and get on with beating the market)

They have gone on to explain that it doesn't mean that you're lying but it could be that you've had an extraordinary run of luck and/or you're selectively reviewing your results.

Ironically I am with the grand jury interrogatees, so I read a couple posts to them. We are genuinely committed to correcting the Skepticism proposed by the OP.
I will post the skype conversation between the data extractor and the IT wizard of many years soon.

 

[The Don]

Ironically I am with the grand jury interrogatees, so I read a couple posts to them. We are genuinely committed to correcting the Skepticism proposed by the OP.

I thought you were the OP

I will post the skype conversation between the data extractor and the IT wizard of many years soon.

What does this have to do with anything

You claimed that no-one had answered your question, I posted that people had. Could you please at least have the decency to either acknowledge that people have answered your question (albeit maybe not giving the answers you wanted) or clarify why you think people have not answered your question.

 

[Samson]

I thought you were the OP



What does this have to do with anything

You claimed that no-one had answered your question, I posted that people had. Could you please at least have the decency to either acknowledge that people have answered your question (albeit maybe not giving the answers you wanted) or clarify why you think people have not answered your question.

Yes I will.

Don't ask me what I think of you.
I might not give you the answer that you want me to.

That was Fleetwood Mac some time before they became famous.

However, my thesis will never be that the beat poets are better at mathematical philosophy than the specialists.

 

[Samson]

Obviously I will happily keep contributing to this thread.
Someone should return to the OP and answer it line by line.

I have suggested either I am making false statements, or have proven beyond doubt that price history reveals sufficient information to consistently create a positive bank balance.

What I am divining from the thread is that contributors would prefer me to be wrong than right, which is really puzzling.

 

[The Don]

Yes I will.

Then please feel free to do so

Don't ask me what I think of you.
I might not give you the answer that you want me to.

That was Fleetwood Mac some time before they became famous.

So what ?

However, my thesis will never be that the beat poets are better at mathematical philosophy than the specialists.

So what ?

Why are you posting in this thread ?

• If it's to verify your results then you'll need to present them
• If it's merely to boast or shoot the breeze then expect a rocky ride
• If it's to get advice about how to fund putting your theory into practice advice has been given

 

[Samson]

Then please feel free to do so



So what ?



So what ?

Why are you posting in this thread ?

• If it's to verify your results then you'll need to present them
• If it's merely to boast or shoot the breeze then expect a rocky ride
• If it's to get advice about how to fund putting your theory into practice advice has been given

No no no. Because my question in the OP has not been answered, and there are serial cases of thread creep, I find myself extemporising. I feel no obligation to furnish responses that challenge my statements. They have a logical truth value of 1.

 

[The Don]

Obviously I will happily keep contributing to this thread.
Someone should return to the OP and answer it line by line.

I have suggested either I am making false statements, or have proven beyond doubt that price history reveals sufficient information to consistently create a positive bank balance.

What I am divining from the thread is that contributors would prefer me to be wrong than right, which is really puzzling.

Well which is it ?

Answer the one single question "Am I lying ?" or address the OP line by line

The world is reluctant to believe price history alone contains sufficient information to construct a fiscal winning strategy.

That's correct, many have tried, some have had brief periods of success but they have all failed in the long term. If their analysis was faulty it was because of their faulty analysis, if their analysis was accurate then the market adjusts to take account of it.

Therefore I logged into the real time information using a saxo platform simulator.

If you say so.

I traded the emini snp for 6 months, and exclusive of brokerage, took an account from 100k to 200k $A. I have a graph showing max drawdown of 20k.

Without any evidence this becomes a case of "cool story bro"

Does anyone believe me?

I'm a fairly trusting soul so my default position is to take what people say at face value. On that basis, at the start of this thread I was willing to believe that you thought that you had a failsafe method to predict the market and that you thought that you had 6 months' simulated transactions to verify it. I thought that this was due to a combination of luck and confirmation bais.

The longer this thread goes on without you presenting any evidence and the more you resort to cryptic posts then the less likely I am to take your claims at face value and the more likely I am to think that you have other motives to post in this thread (though I'm at a loss to know what they are).

Disclosure of interest, I have followed it closely since 1984.

M'kay

 

[The Don]

No no no. Because my question in the OP has not been answered,

The question has been answered several times, you just don't seem to like the answers given and you seem unwilling or unable to provide information to revise their answers.

and there are serial cases of thread creep,

Then bring the thread back on topic by addressing the answers to your question

I find myself extemporising.

I disagree, I think you're being evasive because thread isn't going the way you want it to (although for the life of me I do not know what that is)

I feel no obligation to furnish responses that challenge my statements.

Then at least provide data to support your assertions.

They have a logical truth value of 1.

 

[Samson]

Well which is it ?

Answer the one single question "Am I lying ?" or address the OP line by



That's correct, many have tried, some have had brief periods of success but they have all failed in the long term. If their analysis was faulty it was because of their faulty analysis, if their analysis was accurate then the market adjusts to take account of it.



If you say so.



Without any evidence this becomes a case of "cool story bro"



I'm a fairly trusting soul so my default position is to take what people say at face value. On that basis, at the start of this thread I was willing to believe that you thought that you had a failsafe method to predict the market and that you thought that you had 6 months' simulated transactions to verify it. I thought that this was due to a combination of luck and confirmation bais.

The longer this thread goes on without you presenting any evidence and the more you resort to cryptic posts then the less likely I am to take your claims at face value and the more likely I am to think that you have other motives to post in this thread (though I'm at a loss to know what they are).



M'kay

Good post. I have no motivation at all.
I only post because there is a broader purpose for the best forum, which incidentally is accidentally the best but badly managed.
If you go to the opening post, and deconstruct and answer line by line, you may learn more about yourself than me.

 

[The Don]

Good post. I have no motivation at all.

Still not answering the most basic of questions I see

I only post because there is a broader purpose for the best forum, which incidentally is accidentally the best but badly managed.

Any actual evidence to support either of the two (off topic - something I thought you were pretty concerned about) assertions ?

If you go to the opening post, and deconstruct and answer line by line, you may learn more about yourself than me.

So basically you have nothing ?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Someone should return to the OP and answer it line by line.

Line by line? I only see one question in the OP - "Does anyone believe me?".

Without asking every lurker who viewed the OP we can't know for certain, but I think it's possible that someone believes you. After all, some people believe the Moon landings were faked, the Earth is flat and Elvis is still alive...

What I am divining from the thread is that contributors would prefer me to be wrong than right, which is really puzzling.

If you are wrong then everything is normal and there's nothing to worry about. However if you are right then there are two possible outcomes:-

1. You don't invest any real money, and regret the missed opportunity to become a billionaire. We don't want you to feel sad, so naturally we would rather that you were wrong.

2. You do invest, become rich beyond your wildest dreams, and the extreme wealth hurts you. Having known a few people who's money literally killed them, I would be very concerned if you followed this path...

 

[Samson]

Still not answering the most basic of questions I see



Any actual evidence to support either of the two (off topic - something I thought you were pretty concerned about) assertions ?



So basically you have nothing ?

The Don:

You are seriously sidestepping the OP question.

If my statements are non false, then can you assert with better evidence that price history alone will not be useful to beat le market. How many ways must I ask the question?
Furthermore, can you suggest that the OP question should be challenged with concepts of malfeasance?

 

[Samson]

Line by line? I only see one question in the OP - "Does anyone believe me?".

Without asking every lurker who viewed the OP we can't know for certain, but I think it's possible that someone believes you. After all, some people believe the Moon landings were faked, the Earth is flat and Elvis is still alive...

If you are wrong then everything is normal and there's nothing to worry about. However if you are right then there are two possible outcomes:-

1. You don't invest any real money, and regret the missed opportunity to become a billionaire. We don't want you to feel sad, so naturally we would rather that you were wrong.

2. You do invest, become rich beyond your wildest dreams, and the extreme wealth hurts you. Having known a few people who's money literally killed them, I would be very concerned if you followed this path...

Which is why this forum thrives. A range of players, I agree with your post. No one should be burdened with unexpected wealth.

 

[The Don]

The Don:

You are seriously sidestepping the OP question.

No, I am answering the question

If my statements are non false,

Thats assumes facts not (yet) in evidence.

then can you assert with better evidence that price history alone will not be useful to beat le market.

Yes, all the previous failed attempts to beat the market through technical analysis.

How many ways must I ask the question?

Well now it seems to be a different question.

The original question was:

Does anyone believe me?

I know it was a question because it had a question mark at the end of it.

Now the question seems to be something like:

Can price information alone be used to construct a model which can successfully predict future price movements ?

My answer to that is "probably not for the medium to long term" and that to date no such model appears to have been developed. It is feasible that a model could work in the short term because the market conditions used to develop it continue to be in place; the market has not yet self corrected; by chance it happens to align with the random movements of the market or a combination of those factors.

For example, a lot of people made a lot of money from silver with models which predicted that the price of silver would rise inexorably. These models worked brilliantly right up to the point in time where the price of silver leveled off and started to go down.

Furthermore, can you suggest that the OP question should be challenged with concepts of malfeasance?

I recognise every single word in that sentence but cannot extract a meaning from it - sorry.

 

[Samson]

That's by design. Remember the "O" word that was introduced earlier. It's part of the con.

I've given up on understanding the odd math, and I don't even want proof of his prior "trades." Neither really matter. There are undoubtably people out there who have doubled their investment in 6 months even using real money. But others have halved it. The only question therefore is can a person double it again and again and again the same way. There are many reasons I am skeptic, but I am willing to shut up and see what happens if Samson agrees. Especially if it doesn't involve any of my money.

Samson, please remember to post the length of the test period you wish to use, and the minimum profit you would consider a successful demonstration over that period. Shall we go for 6 months and double the investment as you cite happened before? But it is your call. Thanks for your willingness to prove your point in this way!

Seems like a good a time as any to plug The Signal And The Noise by Nate Silver.

You can't beat the market, at least not on purpose.

No, I am answering the question



Thats assumes facts not (yet) in evidence.




Yes, all the previous failed attempts to beat the market through technical analysis.



Well now it seems to be a different question.

The original question was:



I know it was a question because it had a question mark at the end of it.

Now the question seems to be something like:



My answer to that is "probably not for the medium to long term" and that to date no such model appears to have been developed. It is feasible that a model could work in the short term because the market conditions used to develop it continue to be in place; the market has not yet self corrected; by chance it happens to align with the random movements of the market or a combination of those factors.

For example, a lot of people made a lot of money from silver with models which predicted that the price of silver would rise inexorably. These models worked brilliantly right up to the point in time where the price of silver leveled off and started to go down.



I recognise every single word in that sentence but cannot extract a meaning from it - sorry.

Did you think anything about the length of time in trade of the first and last trade?
Were these randomly selected?
Can you lend your mind to such analysis?

 

[marplots]

Line by line? I only see one question in the OP - "Does anyone believe me?".

Without asking every lurker who viewed the OP we can't know for certain, but I think it's possible that someone believes you. After all, some people believe the Moon landings were faked, the Earth is flat and Elvis is still alive...

I believe him.

That doesn't help much though. Because the real trouble isn't in believing a rare thing happened, but the reason it happened.

Chance is one possibility.
An analytic method that predicts what everyone thinks can't be predicted is another.

The real question, and one we need the OP to help answer, is: Given the event actually occurred, which of the two competing explanations is more likely to be correct? (Or, if there's another explanation I haven't thought of.)

Merely believing something rare happened is not the same as accepting the proposed explanation for why it happened. Not at all.

 

[The Don]

Did you think anything about the length of time in trade of the first and last trade?

No. I didn't think it worthwhile investing time and effort into analysing trades when I have no idea whether:

• The trades exist
• They represent a full set of trades conforming to the model or ones cherry-picked for success
• They confrom to your model - on the grounds that you have not made it public

Were these randomly selected?

I have no idea whether they were randomly selected, specifically selected to demonstrate *something* that you will eventually make clear or represent the full set of trades executed according to your, as yet mysterious, model.

At least kevsta provided colourful and interesting graphs with all kinds of lines on to explain what he thought might happen in the future. At least he provided falsifiable predictions to test his model. So far all you have done is suggest that you have a model, publish some data that you claim indicates that the model works and fail to answer questions put directly to you.

Can you lend your mind to such analysis?

Not really, when it's not at all clear what the analysis should entail.