Kudos to MMs

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by nitro, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. dont

    dont

    It seems to me that you keep on changing your model, bit like looking for the perpetual motion machine, on one side you seem to be looking for when the market is wrong but then when you get one unexpected result you change the whole model, you are going to, go round in circles like this. I am coming round to nltro's thinking on this experiment.
     
    #2331     Nov 8, 2010
  2. nitro

    nitro

    S ESZ0 1219.25.

    Out the short 1222.30 SPX (sim) at 1221.36 on < 7 edge, ~ +1. I got confused at first.
     
    #2332     Nov 8, 2010
  3. nitro

    nitro

    I understand your frustration. I assure you that everything in FV is not curve fit and holds sound theory. However, look at the evidence - it consistently under targets the SPX in [very] strong [up] trends. During WWII, they invented an algorithm called the Kahlman Filter. The idea is to be able to algorithmically be able to predict where a plane will be, so that you can tell your guns where you are supposed to aim. If you aim where the plane is, you will of course miss shooting it down because of tracking error.

    I feel that at least some percentage of the time, FV should sometimes over estimate, and sometimes underestimate. Then we keep track of how often one converges towards the other. But consistently underestimating in very strong up trends almost certainly means I am [was] missing something.

    Outside of perhaps underestimating the money multiplier [as I stated in a post above], I have run out of ideas. The market is either being leaked the "MM" components, or it is doing a killer job of predicting it. This either works or it doesn't. The only other thing that could potentially change now are "coupling constants" (that would be really bad), and perhaps I should have asymmetry in the equations because down markets behave differently in than up markets (although there is probably a transform that removes time where the two would look very similar). We'll see.
     
    #2333     Nov 8, 2010
  4. nitro

    nitro

    FV 1217.47. SPX 1,221.36.
     
    #2334     Nov 8, 2010
  5. nitro

    nitro

    FV 1216.22. SPX $1,219.77. Almost convergence. Remember, for daytrades, convergence (where we must exit win or lose) is anything within 1 point of each other. "100%" conversion is within a fraction of each other.

    There is no notion of chains for intra day trades, although maybe there should be.
     
    #2335     Nov 8, 2010
  6. nitro

    nitro

    FV 1214.79. SPX $1,219.35.

    I feel obligated to give lots of updates today, because FV is distinctly different than before.

    One thing I can't wait to see is, on a -2% day, _and_ FV and SPX start out close to each other in value, how far ahead will FV stay of SPX, allowing it to take the full extent of the move? Can't wait.
     
    #2336     Nov 8, 2010
  7. nitro

    nitro

    FV 1201. SPX 1,217.62.

    Edge > 14, short SPX again at 1217.62 (sim). Still holding daytrade short.

    FV collapsing, even without the decay. Here we go again, let's see...
     
    #2337     Nov 8, 2010
  8. nitro

    nitro

    Sorry bug in code, no Sim trade, but in real life it would been put on, so it stays.

    FV is 1209.23. :(
     
    #2338     Nov 8, 2010
  9. nitro

    nitro

    Gold 1,406.85. What a complete and utter joke. I would believe it if oil > $100.
     
    #2339     Nov 8, 2010
  10. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    Why is it a joke?
     
    #2340     Nov 8, 2010