Forgot to add... While markets may have a fractal nature I don't actually believe that you can predict anything with fractals.
thanks for the links. From my limited understanding I would say, if anything, the market is multifractal, but then again this would be a more general discription and there are better and more complete statistical models that do a better job at explaining the data generating process. I would also say that as far as predicting goes, as long as you can better predict the distribution (though unobervable) in the future, then you're able to better monetize market features.
Here is an interesting pattern in SPY as of last close from the price action blog with one showing only in the history and zero showings in some other markets. The author tries to provide an explanation for that. Anyone else has one? http://t.co/mEsKnNQw Do you think this a a random pattern or it has some meaning?
I agree...! "Double outside of inside day..." Rare indeed... I think his explanation is pretty good. Traders bought too much then froze up... Went down some and then they frantically re-bought the dip... I don't know if it has any real meaning though... If you change time frames you won't see the same thing.
This thread is sort of dead but here is an interesting link. http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/wavelets/hurst/
Thanks for thie excellent reference but I think there is a fundamental flaw that makes all this work a waste. Trends can show up in random data too. Just toss a coin and you will see that. Go to "price action lab blog" and search for the post "Fooled by Randomness Through Selection Bias". There is a link to an applet where you can generate all kinds of nice looking trends by tossing a coin that can fool you in that the market is not random. This is what I got after six trials for 1000 tosses: Again, the fundamental flaw is that trends deny the random-walk theory. There are random trends and deterministic trends. The Hurst exponent cannot tell you which is which. This is the flaw. It is simple. I wonder why those people do not think of that before doing all that hard work.
just by saying 'there are random trends and deterministic trends' it seems like you admit that you CAN TELL which is which and 'which is an illusion' .. how do you do that? if there wasn't a method one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two..In other words how do we know that 'There are random trends and deterministic trends' ? In the market that is..
Please not not distort what I said. I said there are deterministic trends and random trends. What does that relate to the market? I don't know. I just argued that finding a trend in the market does not imply the market is not random. What you do not understand from the above? Just to make it clearer for you: I know there are trends in random data. Then, finding trends in market data cannot imply the data is not random. All that math check the presence of trends. To claim the trends imply no randomness it is equivalent to claiming that the trends in market data are deterministic. That is their claim, not mine.. Get it?
Stats 101: statistical significance. You can set up a hypothesis test, where the null hypothesis H0 is that your proposed trend is random, and H1 is that it is not. You must then somehow construct the expected background probability distribution of the random case (there are two ways to go about this: one is to go back to the fundamental distributions of your process and build it based on that; the other is to empirically construct it using MC sampling). You then compare your proposed trend with the background (random) probability distribution. If your trend falls within the extreme tails of your random distribution at level p=0.05, then you can reject H0 at that p level (i.e., there is a 95% chance it is not random). Of course, there are many ways to screw this analysis up and trick yourself into thinking that you have something when in fact there is no statistical significance.