So you think there are some significance to Serial Correlation? If your answer is yes... then let me ask you if each dice you roll has significance? Does the dice preserve the past result into conclusion? Then comes the philosophical debate.... due to the nature of programming and system trading... it's insignificant.
For Galt the Dolt. Sweet. Got time on its hands to waste and is jacking itself about researching posts. You need to get a life. And then there is your "linguistic analysis.." !!!! Now, you are in the wrong site. This is for traders, stupid. And one more thing, full time loser, you really do need to start making some money.. .. beyond you huh? Would've given you a mind shift, though. But please have a nice day.
Yeah, I agree... I have WDGann as my mentor but... would you like to mentor me instead of him... He's a complete jackass...
"Quote from MrJohnGalt: Lemme say this... there are no system that are predictive because system performance is based on market moves and it's objective extraction of the market. This is the same as saying markets are predictive. " Mr. Galt, if I have support and resistance levels that are extremely accurate, wouldn't that be predictive? I.e. they PREDICT with a high level of accuracy where the market will reverse. Such levels are a fact. So I'd have to disagree with you and say that yes, markets, to a profitable extent, can be predicted. Of course, you also have to be able to REACT to the market, but to say that there is no prediction possible whatsoever, is simply wrong. Phil
Please don't mix predictive with probable. For example, let's say the market makes a resistance, then pulls back a few points... Now the market stalls and moves back towards the previous resistance. Would the previous top a predictive or a probable resistance? It would be a probable resistance. Now let's say it does reverse... Did you actually predict the outcome? Well, not exactly... it's just a positive outcome of a probable situation. Get it? There is a big difference in predictive and probable.
The problem with your analyis is that you provide no real evidence to the contrary. The only convincing evidence that "support/resistance" works would be to provide a detailed analysis that it works, not hand waving and claiming others are stupid. FWIW, I too have noticed that S/R, as defiend in the TA literature, seems to have an uncanny ability at times to "predict" market tops and bottoms. The problem is, it is not a reliable measure when you take months and years of data into consideration. Part of the problem may be that you guys are not defining your terms accurately. John thinks "system trading" is programming a system into a computer and having every single trade that it emits traded. You may be thinking that "system tradnig" is closer to "systematic" trading, where your analysis is very logical and scientific, but it is not a program run by a computer.This may result in discretion. In the final analysis, the point is that it is hard to know anything without providing hard data, either by John showing the output of several months of system trading, or by splphil showing that he trades S/R and giving a PnL statement. Otherwise, IMO, you are both spinning your wheels going nowhere fast. nitro
Well, I'm not netpicking, but yes... I agree it's pure semantics.... PS. I never knew that you can use words like semantics...
Well... there are obvious stupid people... Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha But seriously.... Well, not really but... "System Trading" sounds cool than "Mechanical Trading" Just like how people say "My Model" than "My System"