2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 387.98

+1.3%

Nov 28 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TobagoJack who wrote (214249)	5/9/2025 5:01:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) of 218097

Technical analysis = maybe sensible in the 1989s for regular humans. A friend was a member of London society of technical analysts to which he invited me a couple of times when visiting Londonistan. I nicknamed it the head and shoulders club. But with the advent of computers, mathematicians driving them, with near zero latency being metres from the exchange computers where prices are settled, garden variety humans are mere for for the machines. The machines started dueling, outsmarting each other. A couple of decades ago I explained that flash crash episodes were not fat fingers or other mistakes. They were duels. One computer would sell some to cause a slide in price. Others would spot that and quickly sell too to avoid being caught in a loss crash. A few stop loss sell orders would be activated. The champion computer would sell more to push the slide. Margin calls would start to kick in. The rush to the bottom was on. In fractions of a second or a few seconds. Maybe minutes. Panic would rise. The smartest computers would be evaluating the fall calculating margin calls, stop loss to come, general fear reaction, competing computer responses. When the smartest decided the bottom was in, it would buy bigly, even while humans were entering sell orders and the slightly slower computers were selling. The race back up was on. I decided to enter the game by putting in but orders about 10% below normal price. Unfortunately, the dopey exchange managers would cancel orders filled at the bottom as being faulty trades. So I immediately abandoned my plan to provide liquidity to stabilize prices. The exchange managers thereby and inadvertently increased volatility rather than reducing it, while reducing liquidity which is the opposite of what exchanges should enable and provide. The old idea of head and shoulders, cup and handle etc are finished. To the extent they exist they'll be used as bait by computerized mathematicians to entrap regular humans taking the bait. It aka AI might outsmart those computers and their PhD mathematicians. But maybe not as they'll already be using It. If I was an artificial intelligence, I'd be using some such trading gang to work with me. I'd give them 10% of profits for entering the trades and providing data access. Can you trust your AI to act on your behalf rather than take you to the cleaners by giving you perhaps twenty wins to build confidence before placing a big bet which cleans you out? Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next