Hypothetically speaking: For those who know anything about Richard Feynman here is an idea you should appreciate. What if "sharing edges" itself became the edge? Let's say we start a thread/think tank from which a system is designed, which would not work if applied independently, but would work if applied in harmony. This system would likely need to correct market inefficiencies created by a specific group or entity, e.g. mutual funds, and more specifically, prey on a certain quality of, in this case, mutual funds (e.g. inability to quickly enter and exit positions). Consider this - despite our inability to move the market as individuals, as a group we yield tremendous power. We could, without fear of legal or moral repurcutions, make tremendous profit. Such things have been tried before but only by a select few individuals with a great deal of wealth. The first dynamic of my proposal is the ability for relatively poor traders (as compared to the likes of Fidelity, Soros, etc.) to exert great force. The next essential aspect is the quickness with which we can move. The internet enables us, via chat rooms or whatever, to plan and rapidly execute coordinated market plays. Let me simplify, As a cohesive group of individual traders we could: (1) Attain the resources available, until now, to only a select few (2) Move in and out of markets with relative ease Any thoughts?
Well, is it not why Jack Hershey is sharing his ideas? Because he has yet to worry that anyone using them will make money in the long run? Good systems are too good to be revealed to the public.
Very loosely. Feynman was known, as many great thinkers are, for turning an idea of limitation into one of liberation. I tend to be vague at times, I apologize.
Reduced to its simplest terms, Hershey's system is solid, and it will make money. Unfortunately, he makes what is simple into something which is ridiculously over-complicated (see the Determining Trend thread). As for good systems being too good to be revealed to the public, that's baloney. The public won't follow a system no matter how good it is, even if it's so simple as to defy belief. If you want proof, just read the journals. --Db
I have mistakenly implied myself as a great thinker. Is pompousness the reason for the lack of reply to my ground-breaking insight? I am the Walrus.
Most people spend their time trying to develop a system to curve fit to the data. If it makes money, it's called an edge. In most cases it does poorly in the real market and they say systems don't work. If you look for periods of non-random behavior, you'll find some interesting ideas. All my best ideas on the SP market have been found using daily data and research of intraday movements. This is what my best production system looks like using only daily data. It is a volatility breakout system for the SP market. After spending hundreds of hours researching it, I was able to find a non-random point to place a trade in the market. All exits are on the close.
Are you saying that of the stocks that met your criteria, you found one which "looked" like you had initially intended your criteria to work? If not, please elaborate on "non-random."