I was the one who used the word delusion. But, that was delusioned (in ref of our convo) not delusional. No intention to offend here, Prof.
Okay, here's the new and improved version: The real issue is whether or not future price can be determined on the basis of past price action.
That's incorrect. Efficiency theory has no requirement of a perfect market as one of its functional parameters. Advocates of the theory make frequent comments on actual market conditions.
For a perfectly efficient market, it does require perfect competition. The efficiency is relative to the level of competition in the market in question. E.g. ""An 'efficient' market is defined as a market where there are large numbers of rational, profit-maximizers actively competing, with each trying to predict future market values of individual securities, and where important current information is almost freely available to all participants. In an efficient market, competition among the many intelligent participants leads to a situation where, at any point in time, actual prices of individual securities already reflect the effects of information based both on events that have already occurred and on events which, as of now, the market expects to take place in the future." - Eugene Fama It is competition from rational profit-maximisers with cheap access to market sensitive information that creates efficiency. Therefore any barriers to that process will degrade efficiency. For example - irrational or non-profit-maximising behaviour, expensive or hard to find information, limitations (e.g. low capital) on the ability of profit-maximisers to trade on superior information, small numbers of competitors, and so on.
Jack. A fabulous post at page 44! I have done my best to keep your memory alive during your absence. You know that Nwbprop said a few days ago that he was giving himself two months to "get it" before he gives up and goes to B school (at, one assumes, a B school)? You still have time to teach him. Not since Lewis Carroll have we seen a genius like you! The concept of derivatives of a random variable leaves me breathless! And no one attracts ET's REAL talent to a thread more than you do! Bravo!
The 203 trades accounts for ALL the aggressive and conservative set-ups the ES Market created so far this year based on reading the price oscillations. I teach people to trade with ultra conservative entries and exits, to use strict stops, stick to their daily goals and to use tight money management parameters. The Market creates 10 to 20 set-ups a day but if you KNOW that 2 or 3 or 4 of those are ultra-conservative and have a better that 90% chance of success, why on earth would you trade the other 7 to 17 other ones? I know of traders that haven't had a losing day in months but they pick their trades and have patience. Losing trades are no big deal, no one is perfect. Losing days are rare if you learn to read price.
So your saying your win rate is around 90%. Impressive. Thats the best win rate of anyone I know or know about.
Lol, personally my win rate is over 80% but I only trade a couple times a day maximum. To me consistency of results is more important that quantity. No need to be greedy when I can trade, make what I need to be comfortable and be done by noon most days. It has to do with quality of life.