Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[Dr.Sid]

Actually land bankers use technical analysis, they see patterns. If they pay cash they are immune to time worries. The Chinese own a lot of New Zealand with cash, they never sell. It is technical analysis that forecasts urban areas spread when the living is easy as it is in Auckland, temperate, water security, no climate change hazard.
Technical analysis is everywhere, utilised unwittingly.

And in bitcoin.

It's almost funny. Almost.

 

[Samson]

It's almost funny. Almost.

To keep you chuckling.

Technical analysis is simply a pattern mapping concept. Fast moves, changes of direction with certain prior events. It is a pictorial representation of the behaviour of people. Of course schooling fish and flocking birds are behaving with comparable paradigms.

Bitcoin is so good for technical analysis because no one can value it. In the last week I have seen powerful and earnest reasoning for bitcoin 1k and bitcoin 1m in the foreseeable future.

Hahahahaha.

 

[Chanakya]

An involved discussion specifically on TA would probably be off-topic here, but a short exchange perhaps: I'm afraid I'm skeptical about TA. Not just as far as bitcoin, I mean TA generally.

I know there are plenty of people who work with TA, especially TA algos for stocks and options, but TA basically works on the premise that past patterns of behavior, mapped over time, will repeat over time. Of course if it can be shown to work then I can hardly argue with that, but, in general terms, I just don't see how TA might work, except by happenstance -- or, if there were sufficient algo-fueled momentum, some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Orphia Nay]

An involved discussion specifically on TA would probably be off-topic here, but a short exchange perhaps: I'm afraid I'm skeptical about TA. Not just as far as bitcoin, I mean TA generally.

I know there are plenty of people who work with TA, especially TA algos for stocks and options, but TA basically works on the premise that past patterns of behavior, mapped over time, will repeat over time. Of course if it can be shown to work then I can hardly argue with that, but, in general terms, I just don't see how TA might work, except by happenstance -- or, if there were sufficient algo-fueled momentum, some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, we still don't have the right categories for psychology (and psychologists agree these intermesh and are fluid).

We have estimates in statistics based on estimated categories.

People are learning that the 1.6% p.a. reduction in emissions isn't across the board.

It depends on who you are, where you live, as to what your country/area emits.

The Circular Economy Model (see China, EU, Australia) is based on interconnected decentralised systems/regions, each with zero marginal cost networks for connectivity, energy, transport, security (maybe more).

Our town/shire is getting itself organised (I'm in Australia) on that regard.

Twitter announced this week it's doing its version. All values-based, secure, humanitarian aims. Yes, so are YouTube, Facebook, Google, 23andMe, Microsoft - to name the big big big corporations.

Digital currencies and blockchain are all involved in learning how to create a safe secure, connected biosphere.

So much more I'd love to say on this.

So happy people are learning enough to understand the issues that it emerged from.

 

[psionl0]

Digital currencies and blockchain are all involved in learning how to create a safe secure, connected biosphere.

Unfortunately, that bit is not true (at least currently).

It is a competitive dog eat dog race to see who gets the next block of coins first and the winner is the person who chews up the most electricity.

 

[The Don]

An involved discussion specifically on TA would probably be off-topic here, but a short exchange perhaps: I'm afraid I'm skeptical about TA. Not just as far as bitcoin, I mean TA generally.

I know there are plenty of people who work with TA, especially TA algos for stocks and options, but TA basically works on the premise that past patterns of behavior, mapped over time, will repeat over time. Of course if it can be shown to work then I can hardly argue with that, but, in general terms, I just don't see how TA might work, except by happenstance -- or, if there were sufficient algo-fueled momentum, some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You're right to be sceptical about TA. A lot of major firms with a lot of money and a lot of very smart people have tried, and failed, to develop and implement TA in a variety of different markets.

The underlying premise, that there are repeated patterns, seem to be flawed and in any case, the first functioning TA process would in any case "break" the pattern by seeking to take advantage of it.

The idea that a single individual with a spreadsheet has succeeded where financial institutions have failed is remarkable, but not impossible. If I were that person I would either keep quiet and go on to amass a huge fortune using my TA directly and/or by selling it to a major financial institution. I know it's an argument from incredulity (and hence a logical fallacy) but the idea that someone with a working TA algorithm wouldn't use it to make themselves rich and would instead boast about it on a minor forum in the backwoods of the internet beggars belief.

It reminds me of the psychics, who claim not to be able to use their "gift" to make money

 

[Chanakya]

You're right to be sceptical about TA. A lot of major firms with a lot of money and a lot of very smart people have tried, and failed, to develop and implement TA in a variety of different markets.

The underlying premise, that there are repeated patterns, seem to be flawed

That was my impression too.

Plus, the logic underlying TA -- that all causative factors repeat over time, so extrapolating patterns over time automatically factors in those factors without explicitly identifying them -- seems, like you say, not quite impossible, but iffy.


That said:

and in any case, the first functioning TA process would in any case "break" the pattern by seeking to take advantage of it.

This will apply for any opportunity, arising out of any kind of price discovery mechanism, not just TA. Besides, market efficiency is always somewhat wanting, leaving open one those window of opportunity things for limited time periods.

The idea that a single individual with a spreadsheet has succeeded where financial institutions have failed is remarkable, but not impossible.

As you say, remarkable, but not impossible. That kind of thing does apply to identifying pricing inefficiency via fundamental analysis as well, throwing out a very few truly exceptional fund managers. (Although even the Warren Buffets occasionally trip up, or put in very pedestrian performances.)

I was commenting only generally, not speaking of Samson's claims. That I suppose can be directly evaluated, by him, or anyone else who's interested in his specific claims, by charting actual performance against claims? Should be fairly straightforward, I should think, should someone want to take the effort to do that charting.

If I were that person I would either keep quiet and go on to amass a huge fortune using my TA directly and/or by selling it to a major financial institution. I know it's an argument from incredulity (and hence a logical fallacy) but the idea that someone with a working TA algorithm wouldn't use it to make themselves rich and would instead boast about it on a minor forum in the backwoods of the internet beggars belief.

It reminds me of the psychics, who claim not to be able to use their "gift" to make money

I take your point, this makes sense generally speaking; but I'm not sure I agree, as far as this individual poster. I mean, sure, your POV is logical; but then what you say might apply to everyone who holds forth in these forums. We may argue, then, that the physicist -- and biochemist, and mathematician, and philosopher -- would better probably employ their time in actual research or study or discussion with equally knowledgeable peers or something, rather than pontificating on here, so that the one who does post here is probably some kind of poseur. While sometimes/often true, clearly that's not always the case (or at least, I think not, and hope not! ). Different people may have different reasons for posting here as opposed to spreading the light of their knowledge in the world at large, and benefiting personally from it.

I'd rather not comment specifically on Samson's claims. (That, after all, can, like I said, be evaluated directly by graphing out the data points vis-a-vis his claims, should anyone want to do that.)


But absolutely, I share your general skepticism as far as TA itself. The thing sounds very much like, as you say, psychic reading or astrology or reading tea leaves (or skirt lengths!). And yes, to my (limited) knowledge, no one has, as you say, actually shown TA to work consistently. (I guess if it did ever work -- if if IF -- then it'd had to be run by, like you suggest, a relatively small operator working quietly, so as not to trip up the market and upset the magical patterns.)

 

[Samson]

You're right to be sceptical about TA. A lot of major firms with a lot of money and a lot of very smart people have tried, and failed, to develop and implement TA in a variety of different markets.

The underlying premise, that there are repeated patterns, seem to be flawed and in any case, the first functioning TA process would in any case "break" the pattern by seeking to take advantage of it.

The idea that a single individual with a spreadsheet has succeeded where financial institutions have failed is remarkable, but not impossible. If I were that person I would either keep quiet and go on to amass a huge fortune using my TA directly and/or by selling it to a major financial institution. I know it's an argument from incredulity (and hence a logical fallacy) but the idea that someone with a working TA algorithm wouldn't use it to make themselves rich and would instead boast about it on a minor forum in the backwoods of the internet beggars belief.

It reminds me of the psychics, who claim not to be able to use their "gift" to make money

Yes I have heard the argument from incredulity all my life, and the notion that algorithms are bound to be self defeating. Both claims are nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. I posted several bitcoin trading ideas on this thread, one failed.
I will collate and detail when I have time. The idea that posting on a small forum would contradict a notion of viability is just another argument from incredulity.

 

[fromdownunder]

Yes I have heard the argument from incredulity all my life, and the notion that algorithms are bound to be self defeating. Both claims are nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. I posted several bitcoin trading ideas on this thread, one failed.
I will collate and detail when I have time. The idea that posting on a small forum would contradict a notion of viability is just another argument from incredulity.

Did your algorithm suggest that Bitcoin would drop from $7,200 to $6,600 in the past two days?


Norm

 

[abaddon]

Out of curiousity, I graphed Bitcoin value over it's life to date.

It will be interesting to see if the next trough and peak are lower over the next few months. There is certainly not yet sufficient data to conclude a trend yet. It could be an emerging trend, I suppose.

Disclaimer: I own no bitcoin nor have any pecuniary interest in them. I just ran the graph for the hell of it.

 

[Samson]

Did your algorithm suggest that Bitcoin would drop from $7,200 to $6,600 in the past two days?


Norm

It is not quite like that. Let me emphasise all predictions I have made on any thread, oil, gold Ta, this one are based on the simplest observations, no more than two lines of excel code in fact. The reality is I have seen multiple entry points for short positions since the blooming of this tulip, only a few of which I have outlined.
There is no mystery, I will draw a diagram ...

 

[Dr.Sid]

This made me laugh recently ..
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/e3i919/how_to_ta/

 

[psionl0]

Out of curiousity, I graphed Bitcoin value over it's life to date.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qmpcix9.png[/qimg]

You should have used a logarithmic scale. That "teensy weensy" blip just prior to 2014 was in fact a significant price event in the life of bitcoin.

 

[Chanakya]

Yes I have heard the argument from incredulity all my life, and the notion that algorithms are bound to be self defeating. Both claims are nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. I posted several bitcoin trading ideas on this thread, one failed. I will collate and detail when I have time. The idea that posting on a small forum would contradict a notion of viability is just another argument from incredulity.

I don't think you've actually shown that. I don't post in this thread -- or I haven't, till recently -- but I do follow this thread off and on, and this montage keeps repeating over and over here : you giving out TA-algo-based tips, then afterwards claiming you've been shown to be right, and every one disagreeing with that assessment, and then reset once again.

If you wish, and if you have the time, you can, like you suggest, put this argument to rest once and for all by taking the time to plot every prediction you've made here on these bitcoin threads, vis-a-vis actual performance. Your call.

Just in case this is shown to work -- which I personally doubt -- I'll gladly revise my opinion that TA is essentially tea-leaf reading.




ETA: Like others have pointed out, open-ended claims like "This asset/commodity will drop", without specifying details and timeframes, are meaningless, as I'm sure you'll agree. I've only cursorily dipped into these bitcoin threads, but at least some of your claims have been too open-ended to be testable, or of any actual use. If you do this charting thing, perhaps you could pick all valid, testable claims, and -- to preempt another criticism I've seen others make here, and prevent yet another reset of both sides claiming victory -- pick all your non-open-ended claims across these threads, exhaustively, not just a few selected ones.

If you can do this, many naysayers here, including me, will be proved wrong. Either that, or you'll get a more realistic assessment of your algo than your own personal opinion, and might then revise your own view.

 

[Samson]

I don't think you've actually shown that. I don't post in this thread -- or I haven't, till recently -- but I do follow this thread off and on, and this montage keeps repeating over and over here : you giving out TA-algo-based tips, then afterwards claiming you've been shown to be right, and every one disagreeing with that assessment, and then reset once again.

If you wish, and if you have the time, you can, like you suggest, put this argument to rest once and for all by taking the time to plot every prediction you've made here on these bitcoin threads, vis-a-vis actual performance. Your call.

Just in case this is shown to work -- which I personally doubt -- I'll gladly revise my opinion that TA is essentially tea-leaf reading.




ETA: Like others have pointed out, open-ended claims like "This asset/commodity will drop", without specifying details and timeframes, are meaningless, as I'm sure you'll agree. I've only cursorily dipped into these bitcoin threads, but at least some of your claims have been too open-ended to be testable, or of any actual use. If you do this charting thing, perhaps you could pick all valid, testable claims, and -- to preempt another criticism I've seen others make here, and prevent yet another reset of both sides claiming victory -- pick all your non-open-ended claims across these threads, exhaustively, not just a few selected ones.

If you can do this, many naysayers here, including me, will be proved wrong. Either that, or you'll get a more realistic assessment of your algo than your own personal opinion, and might then revise your own view.

Yes interesting, The great Greeks like Plato and Aristotle would be followed by villagers "foraging" for scraps of wisdom. Imagine being challenged to prove what they just proved.

I hasten to add you are the most open minded poster since Marplots.

 

[The Don]

As you say, remarkable, but not impossible. That kind of thing does apply to identifying pricing inefficiency via fundamental analysis as well, throwing out a very few truly exceptional fund managers. (Although even the Warren Buffets occasionally trip up, or put in very pedestrian performances.)

It seems to me that these "truly exceptional fund managers" all seem to eventually have feet of clay and their performance eventually reverts to the mean. The most recent that springs to mind is the "genius" UK fund manager whose run of luck ran out a couple of months ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50052945

Warren Buffet may be the one exception, but his stock (both literal and metaphorical) is so high that he may actively influence the market with his actions.

An exception could be if a fund manager had access to information so his transactions could anticipate news being released to the public. In most markets, this kind of "insider trading" would however be illegal.

 

[psionl0]

Warren Buffet may be the one exception, but his stock (both literal and metaphorical) is so high that he may actively influence the market with his actions.

I remember that Warren Buffet backed an index fund against a basket of hedge funds and won:

Buffett bet $1 million in 2007 that an index fund would outperform a basket of hedge funds over a decade. The proceeds would go to charity, and Buffett designated his local Girls Inc. affiliate as the recipient if he won. When the closing bell rang at the New York Stock Exchange Friday, the famed investor locked in his victory.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...bet-and-this-nonprofit-wins-bigger-2017-12-30

 

[Samson]

Bitcoin had a vicious short covering rally of a thousand dollars but about 14%
Like a dow move of 4000 points in a day.
Botcoin is now reclining and will post new lows by january end.
This is completely outside the algo, just a casual observation.
Life without bitcoin would be like wine without alcohol or a rock band without bass.

 

[fromdownunder]

Botcoin is now reclining and will post new lows by january end.
This is completely outside the algo, just a casual observation.

I love it. Bitcoin sinks in January, you can say "I am right". Bitcoin does not sink in January, you can say "my (unseen by us) algorithm is right"


Win, win.


Norm

 

[psionl0]

Bitcoin had a vicious short covering rally of a thousand dollars WHICH I FAILED TO PREDICT.

ftfy