When I cared about tennis I read a book by the tennis coach at pepperdine... I think he name was allen fox. The coach wrote... that 80 percent of tournament players play worse in competition. some play to their level... and only few consistently rise during competition.
Interesting comment. When I was a competitive swimmer, I realized that some swimmers get better with stress and some get worse. I think it has a lot to do with ego. I did some of my best times ever when I was physically tired (distance not sprint) because I stopped thinking about me and started thinking about swimming well.
Ok here is how a smart guy in the 80s proposed to test for trader talent. It seems to be a pretty good use of statistics.. with some interesting conclusions... unfortunately the charts of the data are missing. http://research.chicagobooth.edu/economy/research/articles/47.pdf
I love it when the Times staff of mostly pseudo intellectuals go after other intellectuals for being pompus. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/b...assim-nicholas-taleb.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 nevertheless thanks for pointing out the book. By the way I just looked it up to see if I was unfairly criticizing the author of the times review... here is what I found.. she is a pulitzer prize winner and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiko_Kakutani Salman Rushdie has called her "a weird woman who seems to feel the need to alternately praise and spank".[9] In a June 2005 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, author Norman Mailer criticized Kakutani as a "one-woman kamikaze" who "disdains white male authors" and deliberately "bring out your review two weeks in advance of publication. She trashes it just to hurt sales and embarrass the author." Mailer also said that The New York Times editors were "terrified" of Kakutani, and "can't fire her" because she's "a token", "an Asiatic, a feminist".[10] Jonathan Franzen called her âthe stupidest person in New Yorkâ[11] and an "international embarrassment".[12]
Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I'll follow up with a few comments that may show more about how to go about building one's mind into a steel trap for trading. If we ever meet somewhere and spend some time when the market is open; you will have a beautiful cahnce to see the market in operation in a very different way than you see others trading now. I mentioned in my first post that you had not had views of other people. It certainly looks that way to me right now.
So a guy writes about two market operating items that are insignificant items. Then he gets editors to put it on the publication schedule. This is how the myths you believe get created. There are footnotes there as well. The myth torch will never be extinguished. Do you trhink Ruggerio will ever figure out prediction is not possible or even needed? The answer is No.
Wrong it was luck that Nadal and Feder didn't make it to the finals. Andy may not have won had they. So it was both luck and skill.
What the hell is this? Is there any way to stop this jack hershey idiocy? Spouting random gibberish is one thing, but this is really too much... What possible qualifications does this clown possess to comment on basic statistical techniques?
As a clown, I feel (using my stat training here) that comparing luck in trading with predicting in trading is not a good use of staff time. With regard to publishing such a comparison, I would never quibble about the statistical techniques that were published. Getting published is running a gautlet of some sort. The gautlet he ran successfully is not one I would expect you could succeed at. If you rhink NTIS is significant, just check the list. My six consecutive listings, at one time, did cause rumbles among the custodians along the academic halls where I once trod. My best stat foray was in what you drink daily. I am known for the four interference tables our team created (I was the wayward leader). APHA water testing, before this expose, was regarded as staid and true. Attention to significant detail changed all of that complacency. The rumors that arose indicated that some people could have died because of insufficient testing controls. Consider yourself lucky because of me. It is safe to predict that you will die from other causes. Do a paper on your good luck and my prediction for your statified random sample of water drinkers. I would guess that you do not understand my stuff. So that is to my statistical advantage. By the way, my gibberish is non random.