just calculate the average return of your returns, then define an "up day" as a day with performance over that average and a "down day" as a day with performance under that average. And have a look at your new z-score. Sorry for you if it hurts... you've just demonstrated that on that time period the market has been going....significantly up.... which is something we all know from plotting the index...
As for stock index futures, I have found it useful to consider them as behaving with both random and non-random movements. The key I believe, is that the shift from random to non-random is not random.
That is quite fascinating. How do you determine when random shifts to non-random, given of course that the shift is not random. And my next question is also not random. How do you you use this information to make money in the markets regards f9
*SIGH* Allow me to clarify, and sorry for assuming too much that people would do a google on "runs test" (just press "I feel lucky", it takes you straight to wikipedia): The chance of getting 1,332 run sequences from a random sequence of 1,315 ups and 1,197 downs is one out of 1,073(!) In other words, the upward drift is already discounted in the runs test. The guys who designed the test made no assumption about the ratio of ups to downs, they designed simply to test if an observed sequence of runs was random in a given pool of X ups and Y downs. Also, the runs test is one of the few known as nonparametric. No assumption about the actual underlying distribution of ups and downs is made. All it tests for is randomness, and it didn't find a reasonable degree of randomness in the S&P 500 for the ten years that ended last year.
You are an amazingly simple person. People have pointed out numerous flaws in your logic, and you keep banging your drum. You did not prove anything. But keep saying you did and you can sleep better at night. The market moves up. The period you chose was strongly up. You found that more days were up than down. All of your logic after that was gum flapping, from someone who thinks he knows the math, but has serious deficiencies. It hurts, just to watch.
You started the post, you have made a false statement, you exhibited no understanding of the subject, you failed to comprehend the math, you were unable to see the hard evidence that I have already provided and now you are trying to use someone else's posts to back up your infantile theories? Stop embarrassing yourself and go back to school, read some books develop some knowledge then come back prepared and we will talk. My goal is education but I only provide knowledge to the ones who want it. You clearly are ignorant and unwilling to learn, so no efforts from me will change your thick head. Useless!