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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (4865)	12/11/1997 5:04:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Nope, the analogy doesn't work, because forecasts by meteorologists are pretty accurate, and weather is predictable! Try this test. Go to a neutral site and find some T/A predictions about how any stock will behave the next day, and categorize that prediction as either up or down. Now look up the price the following day and see what happened. If T/A is no better than random (as I believe), then the number of correct predictions should approximately equal the number of incorrect predictions. Throw out those where there was no change in the price of the stock. No fair not putting time limits on T/A! No weather forecaster would tell you to expect sub-zero whether, and not tell you when. So statements like the stock will test the upper resistance level, bounce off the lower Bollinger band and then retest its historic highs don't count. The forecast is not precise and entirely open-ended. If you want to get really sophisticated you could test the distributuion using the chi-square statistic with 1 degree of freedom. Try it and see what happens! Regards, Paul