Mike, what you quoted Seykota as saying: "When we speak of trends we are necessarily projecting our own definitions. With that in mind, we can proceed to examine ways to define, compute and use trends." That sums it up quite elegantly. Marketsurfer has been reading variations of this very same conclusion over the years right here at ET written by a number of people, and he has continually and repeatedly disagreed. It never seemed to take. Finally, by his own admission, he gets it. The dawning of a new era?
I still disagree with his last 2 sentences. It truly makes no sense and takes us into metaphysical lala land. How do you compute something that is subjective? Seykota appears confused as trend, by definition and reality, is objective. IT can be measured by standard statistical tests. If you PROJECT your own definition, it is no longer OBJECTIVE but becomes SUBJECTIVE taking us into the non testable world where anythng can be true or false. This guy is the Timothy Leary of trading-- super bright, & clever yet mixing things that can't be combined in the real world...... I am betting Seykota knows better, but is just pitching this jargon to create a mystical aura for the "trading tribe" and "trend true believers".
CSI data has what you need. You probably need to call them to make sure that they can get you the right package. So many options... CSIdata.com If you want to pay the big bucks, then get the S&P Compustat database. [I am not in any way affiliated with CSI Data]
Nonsense. Read the statement again. Arriving at your own definition does not necessarily make it subjective. It simply makes it proprietary, for lack of a better word. To do it right, you then have to test your own definition objectively to determine its validity and use it accordingly. The definition can be as subjective or objective as the user who defined it. However, Seykota certainly doesn't appear to go the subjective route with his use of the words "define, compute and use". Surf, either you are trying to be cute with strawman arguments or you are out of your depth. I'll let you decide.
Ok, Ram Dass, whatever you say. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2K6lD6EeGBU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LiE1VgWdcQM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
you guys are splitting hairs, the problem with philosophy is you have to say" if" this were true as a beginning premise to build on as in "if there were a God"some of us know he exists,some of us know he doesn't,market is based largely on money bets on human emotion,like bernankes bet at the moment,that if he prints enough money,he can fool the world powers that be into betting on the U S ,all hype of course ,but it's working,human emotion can't be defined,without it ,you can't figure out the market,with it alone you can't figure out the market,as with math and statistics alone, you can't figure out the market...we can all say you are wrong and i am right but neither statement is a constant truth,back where we started,just like philosophy
Ok Surf, what about the concepts: High vs. Low Up vs. Down Large vs. small stationary vs. non-stationary Surf, once again, how do you compute something that is subjective? Something is "high" not do to its inherent nature but to its relative position. Defining "high" is subjective, yet once it is defined with reference points, it becomes objective. Your beef seems to be with a general feature of abstract language, not trend definition or the subjective nature of trend definition.
Hi, The answer is you don't. Seykota says that trends don't exist objectively therefore are subjective, yet they need to be "computed". This is a tremendous contradiction. surf
I thought he was saying that trends don't exist in the now (which is true), but the difference between A and B can be called a trend. You just need to set down on paper objectively what A and B are. People have been doing that for decades. Most all traders in my new book are not discretionary. They have defined A and B. 100% systematic in their approach. All in machine code. Press button. Go.