Kudos to MMs

Test:

<table border="1">
<tr>
<th>Date</th>
<th>Action</th>
<th>Price</th>
<th>PnL</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>row 1, cell 1</td>
<td>row 1, cell 2</td>
<td>row 1, cell 3</td>
<td>row 1, cell 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>row 2, cell 1</td>
<td>row 2, cell 2</td>
<td>row 2, cell 3</td>
<td>row 2, cell 4</td>
</tr>
</table>

 

leave it like that, more useful than the fake data you're posting

 

that was funny

 

Shilling on et would be a grotesque waste of time. Like trying to sell bibles in a whorehouse.

 

SPX, 1261.01. FV, 1121.94. OFV, 1329.15. POFVF, 1371.44.

I strongly considered going long late on Friday, since I was pretty certain that POFVF is correct and that OFV would go above SPX, thereby allowing a possible long entry. The problem is one of psychology. I have to decide to allow the system to go long on OFV/POFVF signals, even though FV is signalling the other way.

The markets definitely have multiple equilibria, and as I discover how my system interacts with that, I will be better prepared to act in the future.

 

"Considered going long" while at the same time you remain short??????

 

Why do you keep saying that?

He went flat on 11/28 - when did he post after that that he was going short?

 

Some resistance 1272, but I think SPX tests the recent 1290 highs this week.

I am eager to see how OFV and POFVF perform this month.

 

I finally get how Nash Equlibria relates to markets and multiple equilibria in general. Now I have to understand how to choose in contradictory state:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic449892.files/lecture42.pdf

So there is a matrix with four entries, CVF, FV, OFV POFV....

 

SPX, 1253.18. FV, 1107.53. OFV, 1315.08. POFVF, 1357.03.

Update, nothing [for me] to do [yet].