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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: S100 who wrote (2110)	9/14/2000 2:13:12 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12231

TA for Moonies Message 14379114 Since I thought it was a good post, I've immodestly linked it here! To: LG who wrote (80235) From: Maurice Winn Wednesday, Sep 13, 2000 5:07 PM ET Reply # of 80289 LG, it's not the mind meld you need to get right on timing stocks. That's passe. Herds of sheople with a mind-meld are no longer the determinant of stock price action. Models which purport to model sheople are now the determinants. Using TA Models is a bit like Heisenberg trying to measure electron's momentum and position simultaneously = you can't do it because by taking part in it, you change it. You try to predict the share price, but in predicting it using your predictive models, [carefully avoiding human emotion I suspect - or kidding yourself that you don't have emotions, which is the first mistake investors make - followed by thinking they can separate their thinking department from their emotions], you change the position of the very thing you are trying to measure with your model because you move the market and other models have to account for your model and then your model has to react to their change which arose from your model's effects. So stock market prices are no longer made up of hordes of people in full-blown endorphin-primed excitement and wealth hysteria followed by sweating, pallour, depression and despair. Stock prices are determined by models which are predicting what each other will do. The smartest models will be deliberately changing prices to see what the other models do and then adapting to that feedback. It's like a game of chicken. "Let's take the price down and see who blinks and when and how much - we control how much we are selling so we can control what the other models see". There will be deliberate market movements by models - laminar flow in the markets is NOT the way to make money. Volatility is needed. So the best models will cause volatility, which they then profit from - they'll know how to 'panic' the other models into a buy/sell then take the opposite tack when the modelled buy/sell price is reached. TA Moonies [which I hope you appreciate is a term of endearment] think their modelling sits outside the market. It doesn't. It sits inside the market and is now a large chunk of the market [if we judge from how many people follow DoubleTops, Moving Line 30 Day Averages, Double Bottoms with inverted conical aspersions with double-helix reversions, and stuff like that]. The predictive models are therefore the pricing mechanism. So many people [and computers] use them, that they are, to a great extent, the market. The competition then becomes to create a model, the champion model, which most accurately combines all wave-functions of the other models which are used. The dumb models - such as a 30 day moving average, will be subsumed by more successful models which are outsmarted by the top model. Nobody reading this has got the top model [okay, that's a WAG]. You are all playing roulette and hoping to be in the lucky half [with the house = the brokers, taking their cut off the top]. Sure, half of you [just under half] will indeed be lucky and will win. Some will win spectacularly and will do so for years and decades using chicken entrails and a random number generator. Those using simplistic models [such as 30 day moving averages combined with BigMac indices] will consistently lose over a period of time since their model is defeated by the smart models. The only way to win is to be lucky and that means using random numbers [or dartboards] or to have the top model [or close to the top model - maybe the top 10% of models would still win since the top model would be capital limited and couldn't take more than a small bunch of opportunities]. D E Shaw comprised 5% of the NY Stock Exchange trades at one time [I'm not sure that's true, but it's what I heard somewhere a couple of years ago]. They use models, not emotions. That's the scale of model trading. Sure, there is plenty of sheople emotion too [see this thread] but it is in thrall to the models. The models move the market and the sheople smile or moan accordingly. That's my model anyway. Mqurice PS: Actually, I DO use timing when buying. I judiciously wait until markets and the stock are down [as much as I figure they'll go]. But I do NOT buy and sell in trading ranges to make money from the sheople [and models]. I figure Q! is worth $1 trillion then buy it at what seems like a low point.

To: S100 who wrote (2110)	9/14/2000 2:20:58 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12231

Re the Wharton link [hereby recommended to passersby] knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu < Despite the technical and regulatory issues associated with it, new technology will bring people even closer together, make information more accessible and extend our capabilities further, Farber said. He offered an example of what he saw as the potential for the future. "The next huge thing will be the telecommuters who live where they want to live and work where there they want to work. There is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to live in New Zealand and work in Silicon Valley. Who knows? Maybe then I’ll show up to work more."> That's funny! That's what I'm doing already. Being synergistic with It no less! It is a mere zygote at present, but Zygote to Zeitgeist is what will be. Farber has it figured out. I liked this bit too [at the beginning] <David Farber, chief technologist at the Federal Communications Commission, has a promise for those stunned by the pace of change in Internet developments over the past 10 years: In the decade to come, they will face "an even wilder ride." New technology will bring forth dramatic changes to the economics behind the Internet as well as the backbone networks that deliver the Internet to homes and businesses, Farber noted... >