Courage. What courage would it take to point you towards a graduate level course of study? None. My comments are not directed only toward you. Most of the posts on this now useless thread are offered by folks with little or no education in the field. The fact that you (all) continue to debate this subject is amusing. Years ago in the field of physics, you might hear similar commentary from folks who would swear tha quantum mechanics could not possibly work. All the "published papers" told us so. Little problem however with that attitude, you see in fact it does work and to date is the only method that gives accurate result for phenomena occuring on the quantum scale. Now years later, physicists laugh about the discussions that used to go on proclaiming the impossibility of that approach. By all means continue as you were. In my office, I often print select posts from these threads and place them on our billboard. As for your "challenge", frankly I have little interest. I do my preparation for the morning, and then take on average, three to four points from the ES market by trading "with the trend". The non-existent trend. In the same way that I expect the sun to rise tomorrow, I expect that non-existent trend to make itself known to me approximately forty five minutes to one hour after the open Having done this for 10 years (as of this Christmas) I am almost ready to propose that my result is not attributable to random chance. Lefty.
Q: What will be the standard of proof? A: One step at a time. I'm still waiting for something to work with. Once a proper method is put forward, we'll see. It should only take a few days at most. Q: Do I admit that publicly available methods work? A: Yes, and the other 19 out of 20 blow up.
I have seen lefty step up to the plate...he can do it...if he wants too...he took on wavebator, once upon a time...
I propose a new thread titled "Gravity, its all in your mind" By the way, you don't have the luxury of calling my posts "drawn out". I have just finished reading multiple pages of really drawn out pointless, sophmoric crap, much of which is yours. Lefty
That's the second time in under thirty minutes I have had to clean off my monitor after reading one of your hilarious comments. I need to learn to read before I take a drink when I see you have responded to a thread. - Spydertrader
Or: "Electricity: Has anyone ever seen a volt" Alternatively: "Electricity: Nah, no way, here put your tongue on this" or "Electricity, why can't I see it or touch it, I'll prove you wrong, I'll put this paper clip into this out.........aaaaaaaaaaaah!!!"
Any false method, including "trend" following, will yield success to some degree, otherwise it would be negatively correlated to the market, which is an edge. Trends exist only in the past, so traders on trend have made money in the past, but only as luck has provided for them. The theory of market efficiency implies, "If there's a method in the public domain, it doesn't work." One can prove both of these wrong by specifying a reliable method, composed exclusively of publicly available techniques, that can be applied to past price to determine a usefully large number d such that |p1-p0| is greater than or equal to d, where p1 is a near-future price and p0 is the current market price. What is that reliable method?