1
- #351
- Edited 1:26pm Oct 27, 2025 1:15pm | Edited 1:26pm
- Joined Nov 2008 | Status: Trader | 3,270 Posts
Living in China, trading for a living 18 replies
1 trade per pair per year 6 replies
multiple systems per pair/multiple pairs per system? 3 replies
Trading 24 hours per day, 5 days per week 14 replies
Disliked{quote} Most don't - academics never trade, they are just academics The trick is to just test test test and test more - If you keep on finding certain things, it means something, which is why I mention cycles so much If you find that a 3.33pm you look out of your window and a pink penguin appears and you win on a trade over and over again, then when you see that pink penguin at 3.33pm its game on trade time Said it before we are forced to view on a 2 dimensional screen - that is part of the problem I posted another screenshot of our Walter on page...Ignored
Each description is partially correct, but none capture the whole truth. When they argue about the nature of the elephant, their disagreement stems not from error but from incomplete perception.
In a trading context it was briefly expressed by a former colleague of mine (the head of algo trading mentioned earlier) by the English/American idiom "there are many ways to skin a cat", which he would use when someone got a bit too enthusiastic about the performance of their model. And in institutional algo trading of spare cash the equity curves can become close to linear.
Disliked{quote} Personally I find this kind of debate pointless and uninteresting. It reminds me of the parable, of Indian origin, called the "The Blind Men and the Elephant". It can be summarised like this: Several blind men each touch a different part of an elephant—its trunk, leg, ear, side, tail, or tusk—and each describes what they think the elephant is like: One feels the trunk and says it’s like a snake. Another feels the leg and says it’s like a tree. Another feels the ear and says it’s like a fan. Another feels the side and says it’s like a wall....Ignored
Disliked{quote} Interesting. There is a multidimensionality to the markets but I do not believe it is beyond our understanding as if it were somehow only known by the divine or something. I think we understand it hence the reason why we crafted the term multidimensional.Ignored
QuoteDislikedThe bullish nature of the interpretation was shared by those that can move the markets(financial institutions) meaning in the group of bullish traders with bullish interpretations were financial institutions that agreed with the bullish prediction even if their interpretation was different or the same as some of the other bullish traders.
Disliked{quote} This is the main point I am trying to imply. It's not necessarily the condition of the market that is common, or what you call "Bullish" or " Bearish". You can very well have 2 people trade buy in a short timeframe and sell in a higher timeframe. Both can succeed. But why can both succeed? That is what multi-dimensional causes. I recall, you were also saying something about multi-timeframes, where you are buying a bearish candle on the 4hour timeframe. This is the fractal nature of the market. This is the non-linear nature of the market....Ignored
Disliked{quote} Agreed. There's plenty of evidence in support of this. Specifically, multi-fractal market theory is a fundamental departure from the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and can even be used to measure the efficiency of a market. Research shows that the degree of multi-fractality correlates inversely with market efficiency. Which is why my trading focuses on markets with the most evident multi-level fractality.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Personally I find this kind of debate pointless and uninteresting. It reminds me of the parable, of Indian origin, called the "The Blind Men and the Elephant". It can be summarised like this: Several blind men each touch a different part of an elephant—its trunk, leg, ear, side, tail, or tusk—and each describes what they think the elephant is like: One feels the trunk and says it’s like a snake. Another feels the leg and says it’s like a tree. Another feels the ear and says it’s like a fan. Another feels the side and says it’s like a wall....Ignored
Disliked{quote} ] The term multi-dimensional, was not invented for trading, but by mathematicians like August Ferdinand Möbius and Bernhard Riemann.Ignored
QuoteDislikedSo, in terms of trading, we may not have all the tools to reach the full understanding of dimensionality or at-least how to exploit it.
Disliked...Disliked{quote} ] The term multi-dimensional, was not invented for trading, but by mathematicians like August Ferdinand Möbius and Bernhard Riemann. It may be a moot point, but the first person to introduce the term was Joseph Fourier in his analytical theory of heat. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis {quote} Actually, we do have a very good toolbox in multi-fractal modelling as originated by Benoit Mandelbrot. And he wasn't the first to use the concept of fractal dimension, which was firstIgnoredIgnored
Disliked{quote} I've not done the research but I doubt many academics can actually trade - if we took every fund manager out there and forced them to trade for a living we'd probably find a good 90-95% of them fail, same with academicsIgnored
Disliked{quote}The same nobel prize winners who have established the decade's old "Efficient Market Hypothesis" was broken by other nobel prize winners. So, who's telling the right thing? The educated? Or the market's own nature? Due to the respect of the thread starter, I won't continue with the discussion, but sharingan and thtpro discussion reminded of this "phenomenon", if you like to call it that.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Huh, that's really interesting that you can quantitatively measure market efficiency, I never thought about that. But, what's even more interesting is that there are specific degrees to the multi-fractal nature of the market. In other words, the higher the multi-fractality, the lower the market efficiency and vice versa. But, this is curious stuff. I assume the "degrees" in this context should mean the timeframes? If it does, then that could mean you can measure how each timeframes "correlate" with each other accurately. Correlate...Ignored
Disliked{quote} "Should" is the wrong word here. It depends on your modelling needs, and a lot of people use time series data for that reason. As do most of the standard models. At the same time, one gets a more accurate view of the multi-fractality by using a more geometric approach that avoids the time dimension.Ignored
Disliked{quote} {quote} To me the solution comprises five steps: 1. Get your house in order To succeed in trading, automated or not, you and your life need to be in balance. This relates to questions such as "Are you fit to trade?" and "Do you know how to live?" These questions border on the psychological and spiritual, and many successful traders engage the help of psychologists/coaches and/or engage in spiritual practices such as meditation. 2. Check your presuppositions Most beginners come to the market with unrealistic expectations and without understanding...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Sure, but that's no consolation for struggling retail traders, is it?Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hello sharingan, I agree with your statements, but unfortunately, you are talking about something my original post did not mention. You are right, it's not a matter of being right or wrong. No such thing exists even in our daily lives. But, this is arguing on your own opinion of how people are trading. Also, I humbly disagree with the following statements: {quote} There's a lot of things to unpack here, but I'll be brief. First of all, people who "move" the markets are nothing if they are the ones playing alone. Hence, even if you have the...Ignored
Disliked{quote} I mentioned right or wrong because that is how you initially phrased your point as I quote you here "The point I am trying to assert is a bit philosophical in nature: If my strategy works, does that mean, the tools that I use control the behavior of the market? Have I discovered some sort of a "law". And everybody is...just wrong?" My answer is you are not right and everybody is not wrong, it is a question of right or wrong. You simply followed those that can move the markets and those that lost did not. I am literally quoting you word for...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Aha, I suppose it's etymology all over again. I'll take this very brief. Me saying "Everybody is wrong", does not necessarily mean I followed an institution. I am trying to say something completely different, but you are stuck in your original argument so I can't really help you here. Regarding the 2008 Crash example. This was to follow your point of "following the institutions". I was trying to imply that following them is not always a good idea, and there's no reliable way to follow them anyways. I agree that the institutions carry more...Ignored