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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (61664)	10/31/2000 4:27:58 PM
From: Casaubon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

OK, I'll take the bait. VRTX will trade down to $73 before it makes a new high on a closing basis. This is based on chart reading and has absolutely nothing to do with fundamentals. Note: I am not claiming VRTX will make a new high.

To: ahhaha who wrote (61664)	10/31/2000 4:39:15 PM
From: HairBall	Respond to of 99985

ahhaha: At first I found this some what off topic conversation interesting. However, you have taken the discussion tenor beyond acceptable. First and foremost this thread is about focusing on market direction. However, conducting the discussion in a cordial and respectful manner is just as important. Please read (or re-read) the thread header. This thread is about discussing market direction, NOT about attacking the techniques or processes that others use in good faith to gage the overall market, individual equities or commodities direction. It is about being a forum for individuals to come together and express their expectations coupled with supportive analysis. The tools and methods of choice are up to the individual and are not up for ridicule. Make your predictions, support those predictions with analysis and let your track record speak for itself...that IS the way to build credibility on this thread... Regards, LG

To: ahhaha who wrote (61664)	10/31/2000 5:34:18 PM
From: KymarFye	Respond to of 99985

"It's the sum of the product of possible circumstances and their respective probabilities. It can can only be understood in one way and that way is what is I just gave." As a smart guy once said, "The definition of a word is another word." You and I disagree. I do not believe that there is or can be a statement or formulation of any kind, "academic" or otherwise, that can "only be understood in one way." "All traders will lose over a sufficiently long period of time." That is a statement that fallaciously applies a mathematical absolute to a world whose workings are inherently more complex than any attempt to understand or express them, mathematical or otherwise. The statement would only be true in an infinite universe of immortal traders (in which all correlations would eventually equal one)... It's an absurdity, of course, though I can recognize the practical importance of acknowledging the probability. I would refer you to Turing, Heisenberg, or Derrida, depending on your mood. Next you will be telling me, I suppose, how you taught Ralph Vince everything he knew, and how he insisted on publishing his theories despite your incontrovertible proofs of their falsehood. "To get a positive expected return you can't trade. You have to hold." So long as you are holding, your expected and actual return are the same: zero. You must therefore make at least one trade, to realize any return. If your prior statement (which I maintain is a self-evident absurdity) were true, then it would have to be a losing trade. "In due time the laws of the universe pull them kicking and screaming to ruin." Another statement that is either a worthless truism or an equally worthless absurdity - of a specific type that can be disproved by any anecdote, though I will acknowledge there is no trading system or portfolio management formula that protects against the trader getting hit by a bus, the sun exploding, or the total breakdown of civilization. "I can make rigorous everything I state beyond your ability to comprehend." That statement and five dollars would allow me to buy one share of Engage Technologies (not including commissions). So far the only consistency in your various statements is in your self-superior attitude - as in the following statement: "When in Rome one must talk like the Romans even if you think they're a collection of illiterate fools. That's what interaction requires. Sometimes I do that and sometimes I admit the truth. It depends on the what is most entertaining to me." Since you refrain from doing so, and instead choose to rest on insults and self-conscious irresponsibility, I would characterize your overall position as modified random walk or perhaps sequential walk: You appear to believe that price action is mainly random, but may form discernible trends as a result of external interventions - if, say, someone you insulted were to punch you in the nose while you were busy tossing your coin. Apparently, you also believe that such action is tradable, or perhaps profitably holdable, but only by yourself. "You are an amateur and you weren't there, or if you were, you were a beginner sucking eggs. I think you're looking back for your info and practicing quaint revisionism." I readily admit that I was not there in the sense that you mean. I was looking at a daily chart of the Dow. I certainly was not referring to Granville. "If you want to find out what happened, you'll have to ask me. I'm the only pro around who is still a stock market operator and who remembers every last detail of the preceding 34 years of stock market history." Are you Art Cashin? If so, you seem like a much nicer guy on TV than in your posts. If you're not Art, then maybe you're just some deeply disillusioned stock-plugger whose life hasn't turned out quite as he had hoped, despite his vast un-traded holdings. I suspect further that your astounding and perfectly accurate memory may be exceeded only by your vanity. In my observation, the last has been a cause of ruin more often in human history even than ill-founded belief in the utility of the technical analysis of stocks and commodities.