PhD's learn more and more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything about nothing at all. I bet this dude just read EBTA and feels he has it all figured out. For now, I have little reason to believe anything other than the null hypothesis: H0 = golfer has <= anything but an ePenis
I think its fair to say the us traders are as full of ourselves as Wallstreetgofer, or else we wouldn't be so riled and as nasty as he is...and in some cases moreso. Since we can't prove that our past success is a guarantee of our future performance, perhaps the OP can post his statistical data that strongly suggests it is random, including all variables, assumptions, and modeling used.
Quote from Brandonf: The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also a lot less random than most academics want to think. Best post, I agree.
I would make a small modification: Change "a lot less" to slightly The fact is this: The markets are a lot more random than most traders want to think it is. It is also slightly less random than most academics want to think.
here is an interesting paper for people who are interested. i think its useless to argue about something from two extremes, in any case, i found this to be a good read: http://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/empeco/v30y2006i4p947-971.html
Well said, although embracing that imo is a trader's quickest route to failure. In the constant drive for more knowledge and understanding, nothing should be accepted as simply random.
More TROLLS to come. I can see it now. ============================================== Hey guys, first time poster here. Have you heard about PhDouchebags.com. They have some really good ideas on how to trade. I snooped around their site and it's really easy to set up an account and their customer service is second to none. I spoke with some guy who called himself WallStGoofer and he was really helpful. Sharp site, too. Give'em a call.