trend following delusion shattered

Discussion in 'Trading' started by hank rollins, Mar 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. No Thunderdog, this is not what I am saying. I only noticed that a lot of the terminology is borrowed from signal theory and is often applied in an absolutely nonsensical manner.

    Random? I indicated in simple terms how this is defined in signal theory. You tell me how you define random for the ES or DAX. That's the problem. If you can't, it is wiser not to talk too much about it.

    After you did, we will be ready to tackle 'The Trend'.
     
    #991     Mar 29, 2005
  2. That's your own definition.

    Mathematically you can even define something like a 'random sine wave' which is wholly non-deterministic, ie random. Colored noise, wholly undeterministic is random. Knowing a random signal by its statistical parameters doesn't make it less random.

    However, suitable 'random' signals can be predicted using suitable methods, prediction in the sense of well defined mathematical criteria. This does not make such a signal 'less random'.
     
    #992     Mar 29, 2005

  3. to simplify things, isn't this the concept behind channeling stocks.com and proflogics ideas? old worn out, non testable concepts of little relevance to the modern trader.
     
    #993     Mar 29, 2005
  4. Then why did you answer my question with the following :
     
    #994     Mar 29, 2005
  5. Whoa. We seem to be at cross purposes here. My post was to hanksurfer, who drew a false conclusion based on your post. I happen to like many of your posts, what little I understand of them once you go technical. Really. You will not see me using terminology that is over my head. Please go back and confirm this. Further, I do not really need to tackle "The Trend" for reasons I mentioned in my post way back on page 53 of this thread:
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46620&perpage=6&pagenumber=53
     
    #995     Mar 29, 2005
  6. As is common practice, you say it's only my opinion but offer no valid counterexample.

    If a random series is to some extent predictable based on its know parameters, then it's these determinable aspects that are the basis of the prediction, not the random ones.
     
    #996     Mar 29, 2005
  7. Oh, you're looking for the "old worn out, non testable concepts of little relevance."

    Back of the store, middle shelf. By the used eyeglasses.
     
    #997     Mar 29, 2005
  8. This is no matter of opinion or frivolous 'counterexamples'.

    If you didn't like what I wrote, read further for yourself:
    'Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes', Papoulis, McGrawHill

    Or better, write your own.
     
    #998     Mar 29, 2005
  9. Thus spoke NeoGann, king of the modern traders. :D
     
    #999     Mar 29, 2005
  10. Better traders trade the nonrandom component.
     
    #1000     Mar 29, 2005
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.