Now that's FUNNY!! d
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Brown > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 2:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: Philosophical question --> > Breakouts or Moving averages? > > Brian, > > On which forum do you discuss philosophical topics? > > BR, > Dennis > > On Mar 23, 2008, at 7:34 AM, brian_z111 wrote: > > I stuck my neck out, by going OT on the philosophical aspect, for > > Ron, who has shown a kind disposition towards me in the past (I also > > owe everything to my constituency "who I live for"). > > > > Anyone who searches Wikipedia for "holism", "hologram" > > and "correspondence(s)", for example, will find amble examples > > (soundbites) on either a philosphical or mundane (trading) > level, and > > very good examples at that. > > > > I am not going to go any further on the philosophcial expostion in > > this forum though. > > > >> Hmm... From a practical point of view, how would you apply this > >> philosophical reflexion to trading? > > > > The discounted value of future earnings to PV is the > rational market. > > > > The skewed market is the irrational market. > > > > This is how the unversal reality of dualism plays out in this sphere > > of human activity. > > > >> I mean: if I want to trade hourly, should I concentrate on > >> breakouts or > >> moving averages in your opinion? > > > > In modern western culture we are very direct. > > In some cultures, rather than offend, they will give an evasive > > answer rather than tell someone they are wrong. > > > > In my case, an evasive answer means "think a bit further on the > > subject". > > > > brian_z > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Louis Préfontaine" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Hmm... From a practical point of view, how would you apply this > >> philosophical reflexion to trading? > >> > >> I mean: if I want to trade hourly, should I concentrate on > > breakouts or > >> moving averages in your opinion? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Louis > >> > >> 2008/3/21, brian_z111 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> > >>> (Subjective) investigations into the 'human condition' have been > >>> going on, in parallel with our search for objective truths, as > > long > >>> as humanity has been around. > >>> > >>> This body of information has been collected and preserved, by the > >>> few, for the benefit of mankind (the many) and consitutes a > > SCIENCE > >>> to its guardians, adherents and students. > >>> > >>> From that body of WISDOM two principles can be extracted that are > >>> relevant to your comments: > >>> > >>> holism is universally persistent (all things are made in the > > IMAGE of > >>> the creator) > >>> > >>> and, > >>> > >>> flowing from that, we derive the principle of CORRESPONDENCE > >>> (operating principles in one sphere, have their corresponding > >>> principle in another)... > >>> > >>> ...but that is going to far OT. > >>> > >>> Over to trading (OR how the above relates to trading): > >>> > >>> Over the long term the bias of the (stock) market is a function of > >>> the earnings performance of the component companies. > >>> > >>> This is skewed by the behaviour of market participants, which > >>> introduces randomness to the markets. > >>> > >>> The shorter the timeframe the more dominant is 'randomness' > > (which of > >>> course is not true randomness). > >>> > >>> (If you are interested in the subject of organising principles and > >>> holism Carl Jung's work on Psychological Archetypes is a wonderful > >>> example of how the universal paradigms play out in the affairs of > >>> wo/mankind). > >>> > >>> brian_z *:-) > >>> > >>> > >>> --- In [email protected] <amibroker% > > 40yahoogroups.com>, "Ronald > >>> Davis" <xokie7@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I maintain the view that algorithms exist in nature, and that > >>> people who develop algorighms are only discovering another one of > >>> nature's secrets. > >>>> > >>>> When my son first showed me Amibroker several years ago, I > > looked > >>> at charts with Stochastics, and RSI, and I became convinced that > >>> mother nature has algorithms that can find the central core of > > all of > >>> that volatility. > >>>> > >>>> I have yet to discover mother nature's algorighms, but my > > attempts > >>> have led me to some conclusions. > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ------ > >>>> > >>>> My results WERE BEST when I "AVERAGED THE LAST SEVERAL HUNDRED > > DAYS > >>> OF ACTIVITY" > >>>> > >>>> and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this average > > of > >>> hundreds of days. > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ------ > >>>> > >>>> My results WERE LESS GOOD when I "AVERAGED OF LAST 9 DAYS OF > >>> ACTIVITY" > >>>> > >>>> and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this average > > of > >>> only 9 days. > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> Hope this helps someone. Ron D > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: Louis Préfontaine > >>>> To: [email protected] <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:25 PM > >>>> Subject: [amibroker] Philosophical question > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi group, > >>>> > >>>> I just began reading Howard Bandy's book (even though I did not > >>> finish Aronson's book yet...), and a somehow philosophical > > question > >>> came to my mind when he speaks about the market's inefficiency and > >>> how we must take advantage of it. He talks both about moving > >>> averages and breakout, and I was wondering which one of the two > >>> techniques do you think is the more promising for such a system? > >>>> > >>>> I ask this because as far as subjective technical analysis is > >>> concerned, I am more used with breakout techniques. But the real > >>> inefficiency in breakout techniques comes from time, that is if > > one > >>> can act quickly enough to make a profit from the sudden change in > >>> price. But from my experience it seems to be more difficult with > > EOD > >>> or hourly data. And it is less profitable for someone (like me) > > who > >>> is using options, which tend to anticipate the change quicker > > than it > >>> really happens. > >>>> > >>>> Moving averages techniques, on the other side, seems a bit > >>> mystical to me, and maybe a bit too simple or too « easy ». I > > don't > >>> know much about them... > >>>> > >>>> But anyway, my question is: which one of those two techniques do > >>> you prefer, or do you use both for entering a trade, or shorting a > >>> trade? What can be a good way to trade for someone (like me) who > >>> wants to trade hourly data and can't always get the beginning of a > >>> breakout? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> Louis > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only. > > > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > > > For other support material please check also: > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only. > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > For other support material please check also: > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
