Are there any city traders on here?
Discussion
If we're talking about predicting, even Martin Pring said that we shouldn't try to predict the market but use the technical indicators to give an indication that something might happen at a given point and only act when the price proves that you're likely to be right.
shadowninja said:
If we're talking about predicting, even Martin Pring said that we shouldn't try to predict the market but use the technical indicators to give an indication that something might happen at a given point and only act when the price proves that you're likely to be right.
With all due respect, if Pring really knew how to consistently and accurately predict markets years ahead and wanted to impart that knowledge, he would only need to write just one book of about 200 pages max.Technical indicators are reactive tools and are prone to different interpretations. If ones aim is higher understanding of the subject, they need to be forgotten.
So what is your wonderful system then, and where will stocks be?
That human psychology moves in cycles and cycles within those cycles is generally accepted, but that doesn't mean you can do fourier analysis on it, point is that these cycles are not periodic, and therefore essentially random when one tries to look all that far into the future.
That human psychology moves in cycles and cycles within those cycles is generally accepted, but that doesn't mean you can do fourier analysis on it, point is that these cycles are not periodic, and therefore essentially random when one tries to look all that far into the future.
Mystic said:
shadowninja said:
If we're talking about predicting, even Martin Pring said that we shouldn't try to predict the market but use the technical indicators to give an indication that something might happen at a given point and only act when the price proves that you're likely to be right.
With all due respect, if Pring really knew how to consistently and accurately predict markets years ahead and wanted to impart that knowledge, he would only need to write just one book of about 200 pages max.Technical indicators are reactive tools and are prone to different interpretations. If ones aim is higher understanding of the subject, they need to be forgotten.
shadowninja said:
Mystic said:
shadowninja said:
If we're talking about predicting, even Martin Pring said that we shouldn't try to predict the market but use the technical indicators to give an indication that something might happen at a given point and only act when the price proves that you're likely to be right.
With all due respect, if Pring really knew how to consistently and accurately predict markets years ahead and wanted to impart that knowledge, he would only need to write just one book of about 200 pages max.Technical indicators are reactive tools and are prone to different interpretations. If ones aim is higher understanding of the subject, they need to be forgotten.
Pring's (and other similar so called market gurus) apparent lack of understanding, should not be used as a "standard" or "benchmark" of knowledge by those who seek a higher understanding of the markets. The only value of such peoples work is to study them, understand their fundamental shortcomings and then move on.
With the greatest respect, if you talk yourself out of the possibility that markets can be predicted, you will definitely never be able to do it.
Retard said:
So what is your wonderful system then, and where will stocks be?
That human psychology moves in cycles and cycles within those cycles is generally accepted, but that doesn't mean you can do fourier analysis on it, point is that these cycles are not periodic, and therefore essentially random when one tries to look all that far into the future.
As I have said before, it would take about 200 pages to explain the system.That human psychology moves in cycles and cycles within those cycles is generally accepted, but that doesn't mean you can do fourier analysis on it, point is that these cycles are not periodic, and therefore essentially random when one tries to look all that far into the future.
You are absolutely right, most cycles are not periodic. On some occasions a particular cycle may take say 22 months and the same cycle may take 20 months to complete at another time. The mistake made by most analysts is to think the 22 month and 20 months cycles are different cycles, when they are actually the same cycle. The key is to know why?
Random is a word that is used to underline our lack of higher understanding of a subject.
Retard said:
Let's have some predictions then! "Huge Profits" is not a prediction, you haven't even said whether to go long or short!
Maybe has a position to take advantage of volatility, that way you gain as long as it moves around enough to cover more than the premium paid to enter the trade 
.......not exactly clear in his description......
Mystic said:
If the ultimate test of one's understanding of a subject is accurate and consistent predictions and if Pring cannot predict, that says it all. From what I can see, he tries sell ideas about other so called "indicators", as a substitute to his lack of higher understanding of the subject.
Pring's (and other similar so called market gurus) apparent lack of understanding, should not be used as a "standard" or "benchmark" of knowledge by those who seek a higher understanding of the markets. The only value of such peoples work is to study them, understand their fundamental shortcomings and then move on.
With the greatest respect, if you talk yourself out of the possibility that markets can be predicted, you will definitely never be able to do it.
Well, if we're going on the assumption that it is possible and that if someone says it isn't then they won't, fair enough. However, in the end it is about making money and if, without predicting, one can make money, then so be it!Pring's (and other similar so called market gurus) apparent lack of understanding, should not be used as a "standard" or "benchmark" of knowledge by those who seek a higher understanding of the markets. The only value of such peoples work is to study them, understand their fundamental shortcomings and then move on.
With the greatest respect, if you talk yourself out of the possibility that markets can be predicted, you will definitely never be able to do it.
Mystic said:
Random is a word that is used to underline our lack of higher understanding of a subject.
Isn't that a rather arrogant statement, assuming that some well respected names believe it to be random? As I mentioned previously, all the reading I've done up until now suggest it is random. Where is the best place to look for research to say it isn't?Mystic said:
Retard said:
Let's have some predictions then! "Huge Profits" is not a prediction, you haven't even said whether to go long or short!
On Friday I gave you a link to another thread; there you will find, in my posts on it, the answer to your question.There's nothing conclusive there. Everyone knows the US economy is looking pretty dire at the moment, we don't have to look at 5 year UP cycles to see this. All we have to do is look at a few pieces of data and see a flailing housing market, the fed struggling to balance interest rates and inflation and the weakness of the dollar hitting the US hard especially when buying Oil.
Well, lets think for a second, technically Djia rejected pushing through 14k despite several closes above in early October, the fed have already cut 75bp, will cut another 25bp in a matter of days and reasonable chance they will have to cut an additional 100-150bp in 2008 to prevent the US from falling into recession....hhmmm, doesn't take much to work out whether the premium is likely to be in puts or calls for a while does it?
Mystic said:
Random is a word that is used to underline our lack of higher understanding of a subject.
You're not Oscar Wilde mate. Most people use "random" when they mean that something can't be predicted viably.
What you are saying is with an infinite amount of knowledge and an infinite amount of computational power, you can predict the markets. This is entirely true. However, to get even 0.1% of that infinite knowledge is impossible.
Lynx21 said:
Like i say, i can't offer any advice on working for the banks. No one in the city would someone like me a chance lol. I'm 21 with two crap A levels, and dropped out of a crap uni. I never went into uni because i was sat on esignal all day watching the markets too see if there was any truth in what james dalton and peter stedlmayer had to say lol. However if you want any advice in trading yourself, feel free to drop me a email and maybe i can offer some advice that helped me along.
The big banks, probably not. But I deal with some small funds who have one or two young guys who haven't even been to university trading for them. I hope they hold on to their jobs in the current turmoil.edb49 said:
What you are saying is with an infinite amount of knowledge and an infinite amount of computational power, you can predict the markets. This is entirely true. However, to get even 0.1% of that infinite knowledge is impossible.
Using the logic from earlier, it's impossible which means it's impossible for you. 
That all very well, I do recall the brains smart enough to develop the option formula at LTCM came slightly unstuck!..I see this fairly often where the quants work out these amazing trades which don't quite have all the angles covered ending up causing more problems, volatility and thankfully opportunity in the markets!
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff