It depends on your metric and time frame. My first exposure to pairs trading was 20+ yrs ago when I came across the strategy of buying Value Line ranked #1 stocks and shorting the #5's. That would make sense for "investing" per se. For short term trading, one would want overvalued versus undervalued, regardless of the quality. There a e many ways to skin the sking. Some even work
You included I get it though... Just a squirrel vying for a nut. Wisdom peeks through here and there and it's helpful.
I would agree with this. Even things such as quantum theory which are generally conceived as chaotic, in my estimation it virtually need to be explicable via some means. Even if those means are beyond the scope of human intellectual capacity. That said, I've kind of always considered that some things are literally deterministic, but effectively chaotic, solely because we lack the means to analyze sufficiently the necessary data to well, determine. Therein lies the issue...
I think people are afraid of you, you seem smart get a new name and do this again but this time act stupid someone will say darn it, I'll give him a nugget to chew on
Great way to get the point across Yeah, up to the conclusion it is perfectly reasonable to assume that chance could have caused all the happenings. An educated man would take that into consideration. The uneducated man would throw that possibility out the window, if he ever conceived of it at all. I suppose the rounded person would know while it's possible to simply be chance, it's best to take advantage of information in whatever form it's delivered.... Noted. As wise as this seems to be, I still am of the mindset one needs to be quite careful that what they see or what they think they see means anything. Of course this can be done ad nauseum. I hope to learn to strike a balance between skepticism and faithful. It would seem that is where trading opportunities become ripe for the picking.
Ha ha. Thanks. Jack made me feel stupid, you made me feel smart. Ups and downs just like the markets.
I think progress is somewhat circuitous, beginning at simple-naive, moving to unnecessarily complex, and then hopefully settling at simple-elegant. It seems like coming full circle, but not quite.