Question for all ET’ers on this thread. Do the markets lean towards certainty or uncertainty and whichever one, is that good or is that bad?
They're pretty uncertain, aren't they? But they lean toward certainty: they're "(some) order in chaos" rather than "chaos in order", IMO. My perhaps-simplistic first reaction is that that's good, because it produces enough behavioral duplicability for some statistical edges to be both possible and viable.
I don't think I'd ever use the term "certainty" in describing market behavior. As I see it, leaning towards the balance of probability is about as good as it gets.
Neither would I, unless - as in this instance - echoing someone else's wording (for the purpose of making a point which apparently passed you by).
Your point notwithstanding, I'd still give the nod towards uncertainty, given the choice between leaning towards it or certainty.
I don't think so! I've been reading what you've said about Al Brooks in other threads. I may be only a very recent member here, but I've been online long enough to know the voice of prejudice when I see it. I'm not here to try to persuade anyone about anything. I was just giving my own opinion on the question asked at the start of the thread. On this subject, probably rather less than those of us who've experienced great benefits from Brooks' work. I'm guessing he doesn't have a "dyslexic book club". And that Xela wouldn't be a member of one anyway. But thanks for clarifying your attitude around this subject.
No, really. Because I bought the first book when it came out and returned it after reading the first hundred pages or so. It was the only book I've ever returned to Amazon, and I have bought many over the years. So if you could encapsulate some of the unique brilliance in succinct form, I would be all ears (or eyes, rather). To be clear, I didn't ask you to persuade me; I just asked you to clarify. You have not. As for the dyslexic comment, that was just wrong, and I deleted that part.