agreed and by my comment, I didn't mean that applied to everyone who posted, there were some intelligent comments on both sides it was a comment on what it seems all threads become
your approach consisting of trying to apply laws of physics to financial mkts is HARDLY original....many others do it, and make meager returns if any.....D.E. Shaw is one of the biggest physics/quant trading think tanks in existance, if not the biggest one....and even they can only generate about 20%...and they have some of the most bright physicist in the world there, including my cousin who has earned his phd from princeton in theoratical physics, so i DO have lots of firsthand insight in to this school of thought....and furthermore, i have never attended any seminar regarding trading or speculation....but thanks for the assumption......
I trade YM but never trade against a fourth wave down, usually trade with it if CCI shows hook from extreme. Works every time like today. Bought 9930 AND took retrace to S1.
Vox, you don't know me or the extent of my 8 years of focused Market research or 18 years of Logic and Applied Physics background. Don't assume anything, it puts you in an awkward position. Oh, firsthand is you physically doing anything (like research) on your own not getting it second hand from your cousin. I wish you all the luck in the world in your trading. May you prosper greatly and daily.
i didnt assume anything, and actually my position is antithical to my cousins, untill recent years when he has changed his tune, the components of his models that are the most effective are the components that have the LEAST continuity with the ideas that have been imported directly from the physics universe..... he admits that now i didnt say that mkts were random i am a BIG opponent of random walk, but i am also a BIG opponent of efficient market hypothesis.....i contend that markets tend toward excesses, or overeaction to stimuli...in both directions, like much of the rest of humanity with a bias, i do not believe that 'the market is always right'.....in fact i believe that the market is always wrong.....that there is always an inherent bias in the market and that nothing is ever appropratly priced......but your comment about the fundamental analysis of the s&p reveals your lack of education in terms of econ/finance.......it dosent matter if xyz inc. is poised for dramatic growth if equity mkts in gerenal are not... rising exchange rates/interest rates etc.....thats what i meant by top down as opposed to bottom up....
20%?? wel its not a loss, but george soros has made 120% on a single fund which at the time of this crowning achievment was several times the size of ALL of de shaws funds combined, so i guess it comes down to where you set your standards......the BEST of the quANTS can do okay consistently, the macro magi can do far more, the reason lies not in the impossibility of outperforming the quants/physicits, but rather in their substandard performance....