Interesting article - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I wonder if anyone has studied the behaviour of pairs before rumours or direct interventions and if there are any technical signs of this?
As many people as there are rumours. And insiders always do everything before and pull the market in reverse... to make a good cut.
There was a movie ( I can't remember the name) where they also traded frozen juice :)
If market participants acted completely independently, the market would be efficient and there would be no money to be made in it. Participants are united by their earning methods, which force them to enter and/or exit at the same moments.
Paradox...
BARS писал(а) >>
Paradox...
Dispersion
Paradox...
Imho, it is reminiscent of evolution. With variability, natural selection, plurality of species. Speculators are predators. Some of them can gobble up carnivores (investors) and some can adapt to gobble up other predators.))
A speculator always profits from something lost or someone else's shortfall in profits. Unlike an investor, for example. The latter invests in fundamentally undervalued assets whose price is expected to rise due to the economic development of a particular country/industry/enterprise. In effect, it uses exogenous (external) factors relative to the price.
The difference between a speculator and an investor also lies in the decision-making methods, analysis tools, and the horizon for holding a position.
You can say that I don't care who creates the movement, I just join in. You do not consider who you are playing against, it is an abstract crowd, but united by similar methods of making money in the market. That's why their synchronous actions create movement and your system recognizes this situation and you try to enter earlier to sell then to someone from this crowd. In fact, he will open at a worse price and you take some of his profit or even his loss. You don't take all this into account, your system does.)) Your systematic profit is someone else's systematic loss. Again someone else's is not referring to a specific individual.
If market participants acted completely independently, then the market would be efficient and there would be no money to be made in it (at least based on TA alone). Participants are united by their earning methods, which cause them to enter and/or exit at the same moments. They are your game and you are probably someone else's(((
I don't have any system based on analysing other people's strategies... it's just an idea for the future...
we're just trying to figure out if we should be afraid of being technically behind the "big man in the room"... is it possible to exist more or less long in the market without the services of the best mathematicians and supercomputers... ... whether sooner or later the small fish will be eaten...
Depends on the brains of that fish.
An investor and a speculator are different things.
It is because of the efficiency of the market that investors live.
We will need mathematicians and supercomputers when we have a couple of yards of money...
P.S. The big banks are losing too... and they have more headaches... :)
i don't have any system based on the analysis of other people's strategies... it's just an idea for the future...
we're just trying to figure out if we should be afraid of falling behind technically... is it possible to exist more or less long in the market without the services of the best mathematicians and supercomputers... sooner or later the small fish will be eaten anyway...
I'm not at all sure that they haven't leaked this year. A lot of quants have been swept up by this crisis. They may well become dinosaurs. IMHO, experience is important in trading. It replaces supercomputers and non-core scientists. And Simons' success is probably to his credit. He can use this tool in the market in the form of supercomputers and physicists))). They are not a standalone thing, much less a universal development path. They are just one of the branches.
P.S. small fish will never eat all of them - there is nothing for a monster to eat))))
Gentlemen, you utterly amaze me. Where does this faith in the printed word come from in you? Or has the unfortunate experience of the Lemons brothers and the Medoff Foundation not given you any interesting thoughts? In case anyone doesn't know, the most successful brothers went bankrupt and the Medoff fund was making steady profits from the pyramid scheme it was, and collapsed as a result. Before these unfortunate events occurred - there were many laudatory articles about them. Practically, they were the flagships. Everything is exactly as described in "poker liars" a long time ago.
You write logically. Everyone is happy to write something sensational about Simons, that's for sure: he doesn't spread himself too much, but it's all the same to think it up for him. And the collapses of three of the "great five" U.S. investment banks also say something. A lot of capital is a good cushion against collapse, but not absolutely reliable, because there is also immense greed.
2 Vinsent_Vega:
No, there is no need to be afraid. Starting with some very small amount (say $10K) the survival of a speculator's business is no longer determined by its size, but by its brains. Supercomputer is certainly good, but it is closer to attempts of using big giga(ter)flops, which are unavailable to mere mortals, for dumb full grinding of variants. I.e. it's no longer a very efficient use of computing power. I'm not claiming that this is the case with Simons - but teraflop power is beyond the means of small speculators, right?
Starting with some very small amount (say $10K), the survival of a speculator's business is no longer determined by its size but by its brains.
And if the amount is even smaller
for example 1K$ is it really impossible to run with brains and 0.1 lot at the same time?