Quant schmant. Soros did alot of philosophy. I'm sure it didn't help him, but it probably didn't hurt him either. Degrees help people get jobs. I have a hard time seeing day trading as a job.
This doesn't make any sense. I want to test if my strategy is profitable: The only way to know is through statistical analysis. Induction may be used to resolve a lack of profitability. Any other way is not going to be succesful. It's exactly why Jack Hershey's system is not profitable. He leaves bullshit around and expects people to come up with more bullshit. Then, when the system doesn't work, can say it's not his. We can verify Jack's system, but no one ever will. The ATS was published, but not found profitable. Then they wasted weeks using such methods as logic when they needed more solid statistical analysis to correct the lack of profitability. I don't see how you can say statistical analysis can never verify basic conclusions. Tell that to the HFT programmers, and any other mechanical trader that has taken the time to write their algorithms and hard code them.
Well what about all those traders with high school degrees that made millions trading on the floors of the nymex, and cme and now run billon dollar hedge funds. I am not saying having an financial education is a bad thing to have in trading but certainly not the end all in making it as a trader.
FerdinandAlx, It may be that Blowinski is not listening or, worse, he cannot understand what you have suggested to him. 1. You stated clearly that induction is a problem and why. In 1998, in "Synthese 117, the was a parper that specifically addressed the riddle you articulated (see pages 419 484.) 2. You suggested the the alternative to the mistaken use of statistics and induction. The choice is deduction and using a Hypothesis Set (HS) and its Parametric Measure (PM) (See part 2 of the above cited) See also Keynes and his "like kind" requirement for HS's and MP's. Also see Carnap for the development of the model through the use of logic. 3. You point out the consequences Blowinski gets and will continue to get. Other suggest that this why why he has turned to Hustling from his offices on Wall Street which he cites as the trader's normative base. Personally, I prefer Chicago and LaSalle Street for latency reasons and the good views in four directions. Blowinski refers to a deductive model (Cash Cow) that was developed deductively from an Basic core and shells (Basic Supreme, intermediate and expert). The basic core used 31 lites as signals to introduce the four basic functions in deductive parametrically based logic. The first shell, Basic Supreme, introduced the six triads mentioned in http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...=200463&perpage=6&highlight=macd&pagenumber=2 It has since been deleted by the moderator apparently. The intermediate and expert shells brought the coding logic to roughly 1600 lines. Blowinski commented on not seeing the four functions in the cash cow. He did copy and use the coding in WL4.4 as it was posted in the thread. At that time it was the oustanding performer of wealthlab, he said. He mistook the coding language as posted for some reason. This, to me, more or less proved that a person cannot operate from an inductive orientation and still be able to understand and "lift" deductively based models and their logic oriented development. Training in induction and statisitics can be very limiting apparently. Formal education does provide a stepping stone to expert skilled trading and all the accoutriments that go with running a professional shop in the heart of the trading world. I have an ant with feelers nmaned after a mediocre trader; Howard. the and is a railroad spike and welded wire. He known for his prowess of roolling a road apple up the incline to the entrance to his anthill, Rosenthal Collins. His feeler always wiggle and convey a message to his road apple rolling mission. They say in the breeze, "Stop that shit". No one in a tight and efficient trading group is going to have similar educations. All excell, though, as a consequence of two things: critical thinking and mind building. For me, I have been on both sides of the fence in the formal academic world. My training was the best and the motto was "knowledge and thoroughness" My successive majors were CH E, Architecture, EE, TW and Theoretical Physics. On the other side of the fence I taught at RH, AISZ, GA, RPI, Wharton, Tennessee, Lincoln U, U of Mich, Case Western and declined Berkely, Jung Inst, ETA (Berlin), etc. I lectured a lot of places. Some of my favs would be MIT, H, Temple, Columbia, ASU. etc. I married graduates of Smith, Vassar, Princeton and U of N Colorado. Students and graduates who are gong to be good traders are easily recognizable. They have acquired expertise in something of their choosing. It is never finance or economincs. They know how something works in a field in which they chose to become expert. This means that they have gone through some sort of mind building process. As related to trading on an expert level and taking the market's offer continually, what I liked about my formal experiences on each side of the fence was as follows: learning: 1. CHE's organic chemistry. 2. Arch's coherent comprehensive design around a theme (Mud Island concept). 3. EE UHF's antennas, communications fidelity; compter logic problem solving. 4. TW's clear, crisp, concise (doing over 30 books each is like having a child) 5. T phys Having top in the world instructors surrounded by the best students possible in the world. (under auspices of IBM which had 80% world market share) supporting learning. 1. RPI accuracy and perfection for problem assigned. (Carnegie building) 2. RH, AISZ, GA combo of 2nd yr physics and 2nd year calc, environmental math. 3. Tennessee, A founder of New School of Arch (Mies Van Der Roche based out of Chicago) (See Mud Island as a project of grad school team) The iterative refinement sequence in the book on the subject. 4. LU & CW enviromental problem solving (REPS) 5. Wharton Getting MBA retreads to do reality based problem solving. 6. Mich Theory of learning @ Pschiatry and ED grad schools 7. year spent colleagually @JI, insanity rubs off on faculty. Some traders are "naturals"; others work for it. The short answer is that I did a parallel stetch of time (5 years) putting in the "fix" on mainframes and position trading stocks. I didn't have losses on either from the beginning. Rapid trouble shooting logic from memory and making 10% profit segments in a few days on streams of capital were just natural mind building experiences. I rapidly was excused from regular working hours and I had golf fee perks, multi shift support staff, European vacations each year, etc. I was selected for T phyics by being in top (1, 2, or 3%) of GRE testing. I quit working two years after my commissions exceeded my salary. I ONLY used problem solving deductively in a binary vector modus. One of my jobs was to convert vacuum tube engineers to transitor orientations. The mind was the subject and it was a change of analog, obviously. Some people liked it others hated it. Traders succeed of fail because of their mind building. Induction leads to failure; deduction leads to success. Thus you see the financial industry is based on sale and marketing fees and commissioins. Blowinski is a hustler in the financial industry. He posts that he finds my commentary bullshit. I put up a post on MACD to explain its four functions; it is deleted by a moderator. This is top drawer ET humor. So a person who want to trade as an expert can do anything he likes in school. While there he has to learn to build his mind in a field through deductive critical thinking. any one can make so much money taking the market's offer that it is not neceesary to trade full time for any life style. Making a lot of money simply anables a person to solve local or other problems of his choosing. Read the solution to the riddle of induction; you owe it to yourself. Don't fuckup like the moderator did and blowinski is doing.
Thanks Jack, I've obtained a copy of the paper that you referred to. I'm going to work through it over the weekend. I did a quick skim of the paper and I like the authors' approach. My starting point is provided by philosophy. Deductive reasoning and model building is inherent to that subject and has been ever since Descartes' Meditions. I'm also working to obtain a degree in law in order to understand the legal framework that defines the stuff that I'm trading. I've been trading since before I enrolled in university so I could have easily chosen a subject that relates to finance or economics. I chose not to because I already knew then that something was fishy with the way that academia approaches those fields. Now I think I know where the smell came from.
Likely due to edges in the pit that no one else has, like a client you can take 2 or 3 ticks from at a moments notice on a regular basis.
CMU has a great looking undergraduate degree in finance. http://tepper.cmu.edu/undergraduate-business/academics/business-tracks/finance/index.aspx
Well he's just produced a scientific paper that seems usefull. What have you produced? Certainly not an answer to the problem of induction, you merely repreated yourself a few times without really adressing the problem at hand.