"The universal experience is that when you rely on stock charts, you lose. The rate of loss is a negative expected return of about -10%. You're better off in Lost Beggas, or better yet, with a coin toss."
I thought this board was missing a random walkist, but maybe we've got one. Now all we need is an astro-financier, a chaotician, and maybe a Marxist. If you're going to be precise and consistent, though, you have to admit first that there's no "universal experience." Indeed, the statement verges on implicit paradox, or at least a contradiction in terms: implying a universally consistent tendency that is at the same time "random" (or based on "random" data). If it were a universal experience, then you could theoretically get rich doing the opposite and utilizing sufficient leverage.
I suspect we won't solve the random walk controversy here, but it must be said that other statistical surveys and methodologies applied to "rel[-iance] on stock charts" (loosely defined) produce other results. Another group of theoreticians would question the validity of any mathematical proof purporting a demonstration of total randomness in any selection of data, as any method of selection already implies non-randomness. |
