do you dispute that supplies are not down much? tboone pushes his agenda, doesnt mean he is wrong, just take what he says with a grain of salt. surf
yeah and opec have the world interest in their hearts. it amuses me that the bears now are being cornered into having to listen to opec(a organization with long history of lying) to find bearish arguments. supplies are not down much yet demand soared, if demand grows more than supply by 1% this does not mean only a small increase in price is expected like so many silly contrarians seem to think
This comment caught my eye in passing. It flies in the face of most postings I've seen from you on these forums regarding counting vs technical analysis. I'm reading that you're a discretionary technical trader. What was all the bluster about statistical rigour (I paraphrase) in aid of? I am surprised that what you do, seems to diverge so wildly from what you say. Thx D
hello junkie, i can understand your confusion about what i have said in the past and what i appear to be doing. allow me to explain---it is much like someone programming a card playing machine--- statistical rigour is reguired, then that same person sits down to play cards himself-- he can play intuitively which is something that can't be programed into the machine. as a trader, i often use intuitive, non statistical decision making based on some form or another of TA. I am not lookign for scalable strategies in my own trading, however, when looking for investments--scalability and statistical sense is de riguor. in other words--- fixed system TA fails, while intuitive TA can work if applied correctly at times with small retail size. hope this makes sense. surf
Glad I'm not the only one who was completely stumped by the logic. So many people associated you (surf) with niedderfhoffer, and judging from some of the debates I've read, I completely assumed you wanted a rigorous approach ala. VN (i.e. no subjective TA), however, your reply stated the complete opposite IMO. According to your reply, you and VN are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. That blew me away from all the prior posts I've seen. Regarding card games, for most, there is absolutely zero intuition required for maximum success. Although the player has the option to use intuition in play, statistically, over the long run, it should never be better than an optimal objective mechanical system based on the statistics of the game. For example, optimal blackjack strategy (ex., card counting) bets and makes decisions completely objectively based on the statistics of the closed system (although, I would yield that overly large shoes and constant reshuffling tend to ruin the closed system aspect of the game, thus diminishing any edge obtained from the optimized strategy). The optimal rules can also be programmed into an objective program that does not deviate subjectively from it's rules, allowing others to replicate/backtest and determine veracity of claimed results. Poker might be different because of the bluffing of other players (and tit for tat collaboration between other players) aspect. Although, poker bots have also been developed that are objectively programmed based upon the statistics and perform fantastically well (I assume they adaptively learn the bluffing/cooperation response of other players to determine optimal strategies as the game continues). So there's not much subjectivity there, it's a rule based system. It just really surprised me to see that you were on the subjective side, considering all the past associations with VN, and similar posts/comments. BTW. Not knocking your approach, just very surprised about what it is.
Surfer, What broker can I trade VIx futures? Ameritrade doestnt offer them. i never knew these things existed, thanks for the information--think your right, its time to go long VIX http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/eminis/commentary/guestcommentary/-76937.cfm BB
Good players don't collaborate. Those that do are inferior players by and large, hence the collaboration. That's a relative term. There are a few strong limit Holdem bots out there (see Polaris Project) as part of research programs. The ones I suspect you refer to are capable of eeking out a profit at small stakes (impressive in itself). They get crushed at higher stakes. The very best adapt their strategies to their opponent's tendencies. That is hard to do against a good players who's simultaneously adapting his tendencies to yours. The vast majority of Poker bots are either not adaptive or do it poorly. And finally, big bet poker (No Limit Holdem for example) is a frontier into which Poker bots cannot tread. The game is so situationally complex that current AI can't handle it. Thx, D
TA is descriptive not predictive. It is a great tool to use when describing the market, but objectively has no predictive value. however, when applied subjectively, certain artists, sorry i mean traders do appear to be able to extract useable information from it in an intuitive manner. it seems to me to be a right brain/left brain type of thing ( if your willing to dig, there is paper buried on the internet somewhere that i did on this topic a long time ago) left brainys tend to TA, right brainys tend to counting and stat methods. thanks for the post, surf