Cool Scientist... although I think you're not getting it. I don't care what the official definition is, I am using it to describe an entry as I have previously posted. Go check out the thread on Trade this Chart. Then you will see what I mean. It is quite simple. I am sure you will do well. Anyone that aspiring to write a book about trading certainly should. Good luck!
gee sys you're so tight... heh (inandlong, make sure you dot all your i's and cross all your t's or your in for a reaming...) it's the CONCEPT. forget petty semantics, focus on inandlong's MESSAGE! save your petty semantics for Webster. duh.
If your "method" consistantly makes money over time, your "method" has an edge I have confidence in that! Michael B.
Dear dbphoenix. "Random" has nothing to do with equal probability of selection or occurrence. These probabilities might be identical but this does not imply statistical independence. Next time look in any little probability book before you post. Your second statement in the above quote list is very true. Many participants struggle with this affliction, this has been pointed out already by our favorite Aussie genius. I'm glad that you at least know how to value a truly BIG scientist. Truly yours, nononsense
Not much point in my trying to rebut an excerpted quote from a post that has been deleted (along with nearly every other post I've made on random entry). Those who read it understand what I'm talking about. In any case, tanp has had his question answered to his satisfaction, I hope.
Agree. There's enough left after all the deletions to answer the questions I think. Plus I persist on my position on randomness, since for example from a system programming point of view this is important. Particularly the newbies shouldn't be allowed to get confused about what randomness really is. You have my full support, brother phoenix. Best Compliments, ~Scientist
that's only true if his writings are meant only for himself. if the purpose is communication with voices outside his head, then he needs to use the commonly-accepted definition.
The 'commonly-accepted definition" depends on the context within which the term is used. For example: In a university setting, specifically a theology class, the concept of "good" will generate a different discussion than it would in a coaching session regarding a soccer match. Is the theologian justified when he comes to the soccer match and begins an argument with a parent who cries out "good shot Johnny"? "Why, I don't recognize your use of good, Mr. Parent, it is not the generally accepted definition." Says who you blowhard. Open your mind a bit and it won't be a problem. I refer back to gerry's post where he uses the phrase "random entries." Within the context of this thread up to that point, how do you think gerry was using the phrase? Do you think he was using it to reference what db' and Scientist are referring to, some impossible set of conditions? Or do you think he was referring to what I am talking about, just any old entry not based on indicators crossing, or earnings coming out etc.? So the next time someone says, "Good job", remember that it is spoken within the context of the discussion.
I didn't think you were damir'. I used your quote just as a continuum. You are dead on about August. Last year around here it was terrible. And the chop continued in to Sept and by then it was merciless. Good luck today!