They wouldn't let me anyway, and anybody with Wealth Lab can test my version of Hershey's program. Price Physics isn't mystics or even close.
I agree with that 100%. As the matter of fact I was waiting for an intelligent reply by the OP to your very simple and well deserved question myself. I have been saying for years that "TREND" is nothing but perception of a past observed data set. It's a "mirage" if you will. The corner stone question, however, is: If one believes that there is "trend" does it change the probability of the next data point to be with this trend or against it? I would like to add to your well defined question my sub question: Is there a proof that a trend established on any given time frame somehow changes the probability of the next time frame to be a continuation of that trend or not? I will await the answer patiently (if the original OP does actually have one). P.S. I have actually read the books mentioned in this thread. My conclusion is that the author suffers a serious lack of general Probabilities Theory knowledge that intern creates multiple wrong conclusions and misinterpretations of observed data series. It's like reading a book written by a cook where he is discussing organic chemistry processes observed in preparation of his favorite dish.
market searches for sellers when rising,buyers when dropping,if there is no market altering news the mirage becomes the supp/res..the sheep like to flock together
The problem is, bwolinsky himself is a CPA and self-proclaimed stock exchange owner...yet he buys into esoterica from would-be ET gurus that's supposed to be accepted prima facie. No serious CTA says they "believe in Price Physics" yet can't produce any audited performance records. Oh, well he did have some not-so-good ventures at Collective2 and Covestor. His mentors haven't even ventured that far. At least there's a mountain of performance data from various trend-followers, some being alpha-generating and some not.
Thank you for your insight. However, I prefer to stay away from the actual performance discussions here on ET. I think that everyone here deserves a benefit of a doubt. I am more interested in knowledge, education and sharing theoretical points of view. The question raised by bwolinsky is a very valid one. I would very much like to hear the answer to his question along with my addition to it. To me there is not a past performance set of results that could convince me in any notion (such as trend) unless this notion is well defined theoretically and illustrated on a statistically significant data set.
"The well-constructed fortress of government, media, and Wall Street, all designed to bleed you dry ...", "None of those players want you to comprehend or act on the contents of this book. If you do get it, those groups lose power and money. They do not want to lose anything. Their grip on you is stranglehold tight..." Michael. W. Covel And after these words how can anybody seriously read these "Shaman of The Markets" creations? Unbelievable!
If you're just starting, then there aren't any audited performance records to be had. That much is pretty obvious.
Yeah, many of us figured that out very quickly. The books are the equivalent of late night infomercial material for the gambling class.
I think the best way to start "debugging" the myth of trends is to start reading these types of books: http://www.amazon.com/Optical-Illusions-Science-Perception-Illusion/dp/1554071518/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1 http://www.amazon.ca/Seeing-Deceiving-Psychology-Visual-Illusions/dp/0470265221