Interesting article - page 9
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
it's not about Simons, or faith in the printed word... it's just that in this case, he's an example of someone with a lot of technical ability... personally, I'd be willing to believe that Simons is actually on the verge of bankruptcy... but you have to admit he's not the only one using technology beyond the reach of the small investor...
I see several logical fallacies in this reasoning at once.
1) "he acts as an example of a man" is exactly Faith in the printed word. How do you know that this is an example from reality and not fiction. Let's say there is a man called Simons, let's say he is the head of some foundation, let's say the financial performance of the foundation is good. Notice, yes, how many "supposers" there are? But let's say it's all there. How do you know that the profits there are generated by the declared technologies. Maybe they "pocket the change" and then launder it through the fund. Maybe it's a pyramid scheme. Maybe it's something else - how can you be sure?
It's just marketing, for example - "see how great they have it there. unfortunately we can't afford it, it's too far away. but we have our own people who can do it...blah-blah-blah". that's just an example.
3) "he's not the only one using technology" - and you don't know that. you were written about it in a print publication. maybe the people who wrote it just don't know what they're writing about. there could be many reasons why this statement would be false. it's not known, but you believe in the printed word.
4) "Technology beyond the reach of the small investor" - faith in miracle power technology is akin to faith in the power of neural networks and other newfangled technologies.
In general, the most convincing proof would be acquaintance with a person, who has been steadily earning money on Forex for several years... unfortunately, I do not know them yet...
It's not an indicator, it doesn't prove anything. It is possible to win by chance, the probability is not zero.
all may of course be as you say... and that Simons' profits, along with all his technology, are just a fabrication, and winning for a few years can be random... but it's all unlikely...
...It's not an indicator, it doesn't prove anything. It is possible to win by chance, the probability is not zero.
What then is an indicator for you? This seems to be the last one that's convincing.
Well, yes, you can also refer to Niederhoffer, who rode the wheel of fortune for decades, was a Wall Street icon - and yet he lost his fund, lost it. Naked puts, I think, he was selling, if Taleb is to be believed....
2 HideYourRichess: "It is possible to win by chance, the probability is not zero". Well, well, anything can be dismissed on that basis.
The question should be phrased in a more serious way, like this: "With what probability in a series of 500 trades with an estimated probability of a profitable trade equal to 0.4 will the frequency of a profitable trade be less than 0.35?" Then the conversation about statistics will be meaningful.
Well yeah, you can also refer to Niederhoffer, who rode the wheel of fortune for decades, was a Wall Street icon - and yet he flipped with his fund, he flipped. I think he was selling naked puts, according to Taleb...
he's out of control...
all certainly could be as you say... and that Simons' profits, along with all his technology, are just a fabrication, and winning for a few years can be accidental... but it's all unlikely...
Don't get me wrong. I am in no way rejecting the words expressed in the article. I am simply calling for a healthy dose of scepticism and sanity.
Yeah, well, you can also quote Niederhoffer, who rode the wheel of fortune for decades, was a Wall Street icon - and yet lost his fund, lost it. Naked puts, I think, he was selling, according to Taleb...
He was warned by many about the unacceptable risks in his work, so he ended up losing 130 million plus all his personal money. In 2006 he was voted Wall Street's best trader again, a unique case apparently - the very investor he "lost" believed in him. Honestly, he may lose again, because judging by the reports, he again doesn't give a shit about the MM. Well, what about Larry Williams? MM is blitzing and he's blitzing himself!
Сколько людей, столько и мнений. Можно, Maximus_genuine, можно. Доказано и передоказано много раз. А лотом 0.01 при таком депо можно ставиться и "от балды". Пробовала, сделку, когда "не туда", вытягивает, если, конечно, Вы не попали под обвал цен. А с лотом 0.1, да, нужны хорошие, качественные мозги. И терпение (характер). Удача, извините, не при делах.
NOT (in manual trading) is proven and overproven
it is true there is a way - trade together and open positions only when there is consensus
He was warned by many about the unacceptable risks in his work, so he ended up losing 130 million plus all his personal money. In 2006 he was voted Wall Street's best trader again, a unique case apparently - the very investor he "lost" believed in him. Honestly, he may lose again, because judging by the reports, he again doesn't give a shit about the MM. Well, what about Larry Williams? The MM is blitzing and he's blitzing himself!
>> then you can also look at Alexander Gerchik.
he's really very rude,
I'll point out you're not discussing a single forex dealer.