Many can play as well as MJ (not anyone) if they spend as much time training as early on. They have to have the innate skills and those acquired through training. I agree with your latter point. More so, I happen to believe that there are very few people who can race a formula one car, others are best stting on the bench and watching.
How dumb can you be, with all due respect? Just b/c there are tiny inefficiencies, does not the mean the market is inefficient. B/c finding them/trading on them will entail the costs and risk commensurate with returns. And such trading will make them evaporate. I'm glad you took the time to find one of my very early posts. A lot has changed since then. I was starting with only about 50 grand and the fund has since grown to above a mil. The more word gets one, the more people want to get in. e?Except that now I see that I'm beginning to exert so much pressure that the niche is close to be arbed away. THAT is the evidence of market efficiency.
Ok, vladiator, let's assume for one minute that this is correct (EMH) then how do you explain the not insignificant #'s of successful traders around here? are they all lying?
Thanks for pointing it out. Except I don't see what kind of a point you can make with this. It took me many year to find what I found (and lots of really sophisticated training you won't get in your TA books that get cited here and there on this board.) I got some useful advice on the board on starting things up - clearly, I didn't have much of a knowledge of trading per se. That didn't take too long to figure out with other guys help. For that part, this board is a great resource, I freely admit. We have since grown a LOT and are about to register with the SEC and get much bigger. Except that it won't be based on just one strategy any more, as they all have limits before they are arbed away. So.... What's you point??? I didn't come here asking advice just out of college with a BS in history..
Given how successful they were in general, I don't think you can call them idiots. And yes, they did assume the market would do this or that. And in most cases it did. In the case that brought them down, as far as I remember, they were just off in timing b/c it took longer for the market to realize that things were out of wack.
Do not forget that they DID make a lot more than most of us together have or will. They just got unlucky in one particular instance. Give the guys some respect...
vladiator you are very persuasive not sufficiently persuasive for me to forego all that i have seen with my own eyes. i see fairly easily exploitable opportunities every time i open one of my trading charts. the opportunities just pop out at you. REPEATABLE OPPORTUNTIES! from chart to chart and day to day. how do you explain this??
You can think whatever you want. English is my forth language so if I my spelling is messed up sometimes, I think it can be forgiven. I'm flattered you think my English is good enough to accually assume that I'm the same guy as Aphie, who is a native speaker. By the way, if you dig enough on this board, you'll see that Aphie and I had enough disputes for him to probably hate my guts
No, read my recent posts, I already explained it, if you can compehend it, that is. And to show you that I'm not Aphie, ja mogo svobodno zakonchit' eto predlozhenije na Russkom... Or I can do it na Ukrainskom...
"unlucky"?!?!? That is a whopper of a euphemism! You should be a spin doctor on the pay roll of a political party!! They basically brought the financial world to the brink of total collapse!! 'got unlucky'..... The only reason they made more money was because they were using leverage. What they were doing was not at all new or innovative or in any sense of the word worthy of 'genius'. They were using well known arb opportunities that everyone on Wall Street had known about for years. The only thing was they were using MASSIVE leverage. I'll say it again: MASSIVE!! I will never give those guys any respect. It is paramount for a trader to take responsability for their actions and the outcome. These guys never did and never will. I find it fascinating that you don't say "They got lucky those first few years." but rather say "they were unlucky in the end". If we introduce 'luck' into the scenario....then what is to say that the first few years was simply luck and not skill and their demise was simply the reversion to the mean? That one sidedness is remarkabley naive. When you are making money, it is because you have a PhD and are smart. When you are losing money it is because you got 'unlucky'. ohhh .....ok, now I got it!