Surf's Special Situation Journal

Discussion in 'Journals' started by marketsurfer, Aug 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. why not.

    Market data is data. You see and interpret. It is an orange to the market. This is seen as there are so many different ways to interpret.

    You are fishing for an interpretation that fits and any interpretation that does not fit is discarded. You have over optimized from the get go when you selected ideas.

    when you change small parameter you are careful not to optimize. but by selecting 3 ways to find an entry and not using the other 500 you have grossly over optimized. hence the need to change.

    The data from the stars that are extracted do the same. there is an infinite amount of indicators.

    Where the stars have an edge is that a system can be found that replicates the markets 90% (as it is infinite) fishing for it or optimizing is risky but, with so much data to choose from one can find a system that back tests to the tulip bubble.

    Why does data have to be relative ? what is relative ? a CEO going through a divorce ? or a more leading indicator of his unhappy wife ?
    or the wife bumping in to a handsome man at the dollar store ? Or maybe the magical night where the wife and her new friend lay staring at the stars?

    I dont know maybe try fit the dollar store chart as a leading indicator to how the markets do. Im sure you can if you really try.
     
    #2111     Jan 21, 2013
  2. stocon

    stocon

    What are the Price Drivers you often refer to?
     
    #2112     Jan 21, 2013
  3. I'm not suggesting that one cannot make consistent money by using the stars. I don't know and have never done it but I don't dismiss techniques I'm unfamiliar with as worthless (like the OP does).

    But, I believe that TA (price data, charts, volume etc etc) and star data trading are very DIFFERENT approaches and should not be grouped into the same category, as the OP did when he insulted TA by using star trading as an example (which he also dismisses).

    Do you use any form of TA, whether it be proprietary (your personal concoction) or traditional? Or do you use inputs outside of mkt data to make your trading/investment decisions?


     
    #2113     Jan 21, 2013
  4. cornix

    cornix

    I concur. If we continue the analogy, astrology is the form of fundamental analysis, because it deals with external causes of market moves while TA deals with the market itself.
     
    #2114     Jan 21, 2013
  5. What else causes market movement than external forces? The market doesn't move on its own. Looking at the result (ta) rather than the cause is illogical.
     
    #2115     Jan 21, 2013
  6. cornix

    cornix

    No argument here. Of course external forces, which influence major players decisions ultimately drive the market. But I am speaking of analytical approaches here: analyzing external reasons (macro-economical picture etc.) directly vs. analyzing market participants actions (aka TA).
     
    #2116     Jan 21, 2013
  7. You are only analyzing price with TA, the end result. Not the actions of the players-- this can be observed in the book leading up to the trade. After the trade is made, the action of the player is finished. How you can believe, with a straight face, that this influences the next move is beyond my reasoning ability.

    Once again, I appreciate you clearly describing the fatal flaws of TA type approaches to the stock market.

    surf
     
    #2117     Jan 21, 2013
  8. WS_MJH

    WS_MJH

    When you mean price drivers, you mean the bid/ask volume in futures and the DOM?
     
    #2118     Jan 21, 2013
  9. yes, that is one Price Driver, the system combines and weighs 7 PD's that occur prior to price moving on a scale of bullish to bearish. 5 of them are fundamental. surf
     
    #2119     Jan 21, 2013
  10. WS_MJH

    WS_MJH

    Ok, you use quite of bit of fundamental analysis. Makes sense. If it works for you, great. Haters gonna hate.
     
    #2120     Jan 21, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.