|
Any Day Traders on TA? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]My winnars for today: PCX, DXO, HOU, made 5-10% on all of those. These babies have been super reliable over the past month; every time they go down by more than about 10% they bounce back up.
|
HOU has been doing great for me so far! Up 29% so far in the last couple of days! Go Baby Go!
|
|
|
| SSSanchez |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Technical analysis has been winning the day over fundamentals in this market; I don't think it should be dismissed so easily. |
EMH. While certain market series may be useful, I don't subscribe to tech analysis yielding consistent returns...to other than luck. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| To each their own, but I see more and more money managers using it now that fundamental analysis has the bed. We'll see how that works out I guess. |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
To each their own, but I see more and more money managers using it now that fundamental analysis has the bed. We'll see how that works out I guess. |
Why don't you do what I do for Horse Racing...
Bet on who ever has the coolest name!!
Like CHIC, GEEK (+20% Today), LUV, etc.
|
|
|
| SSSanchez |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
To each their own, but I see more and more money managers using it now that fundamental analysis has the bed. We'll see how that works out I guess. |
Hopefully not a mutual fund...
Data speaks for itself
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=1356021
Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R.,Luck versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Alpha Estimates(March 9, 2009). Tuck School of Business Working Paper No. 2009-56. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1356021 |
|
|
| Skipper |
A lot of money managers use quant and technicals to better understand the market. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
...there are tangible signs in the market that things are getting at least less bad, if not actually improving. |
That's exactly what's bothering me. The US economy isn't good right now, it's just less bad, and markets shouldn't be rallying on that kind of news, they should be trading sideways or creeping back up slowly.
Personally I think this is just a big Wall Street circle jerk; they all want to drum up investor hype and a media frenzy so they can sell off at ridiculously inflated prices. I don't normally think in such a paranoid fashion but I just don't believe there's any real foundation for these gains, it's pure speculation.
And I agree that technicals are probably the most important thing in current market conditions. I need to get more education on those, all this crap like bollinger bands and MACD confuse the hell out of me.
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
HOU has been doing great for me so far! Up 29% so far in the last couple of days! Go Baby Go! |
I've been in DXO, good results there too. I checked out today and went into HOD. We'll see if I end up regretting that decision; there seems to be huge resistance where oil is now, though not a whole lot above. If it breaks through, I'll be losing my pants.
I'm annoyed, could have done so much better this week but had too much money tied up in some ty investments that I really thought would follow or do better than the market. |
|
|
| SSSanchez |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
A lot of money managers use quant and technicals to better understand the market. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. |
No one is kidding themselves; I know folks that only use technical analysis-pseudo blackbox approaches..it's the fact that no method or common combination of 'technical analysis or strategy' has been proven to be effective - weak form EMH...eons ago. What is the value of these blackbox approaches...nothing more than shotgun guesses? Why not try roulette? Real quants work in arbitrage. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by SSSanchez
No one is kidding themselves; I know folks that only use technical analysis-pseudo blackbox approaches..it's the fact that no method or common combination of 'technical analysis or strategy' has been proven to be effective - weak form EMH...eons ago. What is the value of these blackbox approaches...nothing more than shotgun guesses? Why not try roulette? Real quants work in arbitrage. |
generally indexes are climbing, sometimes you need to sell at a loss but you can't compare the stock market to roulette.. the odds of roulette are at best 49 %
technical analysis will definatley help build a stronger portfolio. ITs like neglecting statistics. just because its not 100% confidence doesnt mean its pure luck. Otherwise insurance companies would be out of business, and clearly they are making the most money out of any businesses. |
|
|
| SSSanchez |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
generally indexes are climbing, sometimes you need to sell at a loss but you can't compare the stock market to roulette.. the odds of roulette are at best 49 %
technical analysis will definatley help build a stronger portfolio. ITs like neglecting statistics. just because its not 100% confidence doesnt mean its pure luck. Otherwise insurance companies would be out of business, and clearly they are making the most money out of any businesses. |
I am extremely well versed in statistics; repeatability is not something you can achieve with any method. There is plenty of empirical evidence that no method of technical analysis has ever achieved results greater than the market. Roulette wheels are close to random as possible; there are no strategy for all tables. If you sampled one single table and collected hordes of data, then can you deduce probabilities that display some normality. Stock returns are hardly normal.
I don't know where you get your 49% (European table of 37?) because a $1 bet has an expected value of -0.053 cents, std dev (+/- $0.998/$) winning on red is 18/38 (18 red, 18 black, 2 green). Your outcome is a combination of win or lose. You make 50 bets, your error decreases and you have an expected value of -0.053 cents and a std dev of $0.14/$. You go 3 sigma (which is 99% of the time...+/- 42 cents) and this range can be from a loss of 47 cents to a gain of 37 cents. You make 1000 bets, you would lose money with an expected value of -0.053 cents and a std dev = 0.03.
There is no proven statistical market data that has yielded an advantage (assuming efficient markets)...done through autocorrelation and 'runs' tests. The reality is that markets are not perfectly efficient nor completely inefficient. The fact that you have gained is more likely than not purely chance (getting lucky). |
|
|
| c-mal |
I grabbed a bunch of shares of Activision Blizzard... you know, the recently combined publisher that makes those tiny little franchises Call of Duty and World of Warcraft.
Basically, I can't see their stock going down any time soon, so if you guys want something stable to invest in, I suggest ATVI
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ATVI |
|
|
|
|
