LOL I do think they can create their own chaos indeed. But they don't do it so often, unless you are referring to gaps. However, the big force is the cascade effect of outside volume coming in. And still, it's possible to be on the side the specialist would be. That's what I do at least. Then often, I benefit chaotic moves.. and yes, sometimes (fewer times hopefully) I am caught off balance. tntneo
reading over the last 24 hrs of posts... you certainly can't apply 50/50 coinflip instance logic to daytrading because for each trade there is an entry and an exit, often a gain or loss is based on timing: two trades started at the same instant, same stock, one is a ended after 'x' seconds and the other after '2*x' seconds. In this instance, one trader loses again and is convinced the the market is random and unwinnable, the other trader smiles as they complete yet another profitable transaction. Mr. Toad
Hey... check out this link that was posted in the QQQ topic: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.07/wall.st_pr.html Stuff apropos to this discussion: Look for Oh that's simple and read the rest of the article... much of what has been touched on here is covered. As has been posted here already: 'taint random, it's chaotic. Mr. Tode
Faster do you just like the taste of shoe leather or what. I pulled those numbers out of the air because the exact number is not important, it is the broad concept that is important. False precision is the sin of pedants, as demonstrated by our beloved Uncle Sam every time he puts out an economic statistic with decimal points attached. Pinning down chaos is impossible. Since a monkey trying to eat spaghetti with boxing gloves would have more luck, I assumed folks would see I was offering up a guesstimate. I have to wonder at your feigned density, faster: more specifically I wonder if you act this way on purpose, or if it is a defect in your personality that you simply cannot overcome. Regarding some of the esoterica we've gotten into in this thread: let's not lose sight of the fact that the halls of academia are filled with useless people. More is not necessarily better when it comes to knowledge, because useful information can be obscured by overkill information. Concepts have a maximum utility function in application to the real world, and going beyond that maximum generally results in little more than wasted time. If we had all the time in the world, we could pursue ideas to the ends of the earth. But since our time is limited, utility maximization has to be respected imho. Which is why I won't bother getting into the nitty gritty of chaos until I decide to become a Los Alamos physicist. As for the books written to rip off a sexy sounding scientific idea, anyone who has tried to use chaos theory to predict the future has obviously missed the point in the first place. Understanding and foresight are not the same thing. Like the dog that did not bark, chaos helps us know what we do not know. p.s. Dan M I know that systems can be profitable w/ less than 50% wins, I just figured that expectation is such a basic concept that this need not be pointed out. The possibility of being right more than wrong- i.e. winning percentage above 50%- is a gauntlet thrown specifically at the feet of random walkers.