Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (2402)	7/15/1999 4:01:00 AM
From: Joseph Silent	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10027

Raymond......... Its somewhat pointless arguing, as you manage to weasel out of corners by changing your language. First you say something is a zero-sum game, and then you agree it isn't. Then you put up charts showing where a price can be EXPECTED to reach, while simultaneously saying YOU ARE NOT MAKING A PREDICTION! You talk of physics, but I see no physics here. I am not an expert on Finance, but I'll talk physics, probability, statistics or computer science on any level you want. I am not attacking your analysis (though you seem to be bringing out a strange defense as though I am) but only saying its best that you publicize the limitations of the technique as well as you advertise your wares. If you want to show someone that something works, you'd do that with a rigorous proof, and not with examples. Remember, all one needs is a single counter-example to show that something you claim is true doesn't work. Yes, a trending indicator works when a stock is trending but, what exactly is a statistic (an indicator) without error-bounds buying you? There is no statement of error associated with the statistic. I'm sure you wouldn't want to board a plane if the only assurance you got was "if the plane takes off then there is no need to worry!". Surely, you would want to know that the probability of failure is very, very low. If air-craft engineers spend years being concerned about such things, why are TA-engineers pushing heuristic stuff without error bounds even today? Finally, I surely hope you understand I like TA. What I have difficulty with is the current brand of TA-analysts who push it without pointing out its problems. Whether this is due to a lack of understanding of its limitations or due to their zeal in pushing their agenda, I do not know. In any case, the public should be educated, or else they rely on TA specialists at their peril. Regards, Joseph