This entry was posted on Monday, December 10th, 2007 at 12:20:43 pm and is filed under --Stock Commentary--.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
yeah I noticed that now. My page should be last because it hasnt been redesigned yet like the other pages. I imagine assume that will change very very soon.
I have been too fucked with finals to spend much time on it.
I am not long CELG though i didn’t see what was so bearish about the news. but then again, i have never liked the stock as it seemed ricockulously expensive, even at 50.
Cramer said to value their earnings out to ‘10 in ‘07, and that’s why it’s so great. That seems “specious.”
Danny, there is not a heap of research-driven evidence of statistical significance of chart patterns.
We know that some patterns are more reliable than others, but any pattern can fail, at any time. So just like anything else, there is no free lunch in the markets.
However, when one forms an operational definition of certain aspects, such as breakouts, it is possible to get results that are significant.
So where I would disagree is that charts do work more often than not, but for 2 reasons, it is hard to profit from them.
1. Recognizing a profitable opportunity/edge and actually being adept enough at trading, mastering psychology, well-capitalized, etc. to obtain the profit are two different things.
2. Many traders do not have operational definitions of what they are testing. So while you say that charts to not work more often than not, I can give you evidence that shows they do. However, you would have to agree with the definition of what I’m testing, and to make matters worse, the patterns I trade may not fit with your personality, and therefore, we are back to no edge at all from what is a tested and profitable strategy.
I wasn’t necessarily making that claim, and I use charts frequently to aid in my timing.
It was a caveat.
I think some traders use charts as a magic ball, and what I’m saying is if you use them in conjunction with positive fundamentals, its a more beneficial analysis.
Some chart patterns are highly reliable IMO. EP, and areas of support/resistance seem to be statistically reliable. I have done no testing, just observation.
The cock and balls formation is highly reliable.
What happened to your other blog? Hey are you long CELG? There is a turd for ya.
My earlier comment was just a reference to you lower place on the front page.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:27:21 pmyeah I noticed that now. My page should be last because it hasnt been redesigned yet like the other pages. I imagine assume that will change very very soon.
I have been too fucked with finals to spend much time on it.
I am not long CELG though i didn’t see what was so bearish about the news. but then again, i have never liked the stock as it seemed ricockulously expensive, even at 50.
Cramer said to value their earnings out to ‘10 in ‘07, and that’s why it’s so great. That seems “specious.”
However, it is a much better “bargain” now.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:40:36 pmDanny, there is not a heap of research-driven evidence of statistical significance of chart patterns.
We know that some patterns are more reliable than others, but any pattern can fail, at any time. So just like anything else, there is no free lunch in the markets.
However, when one forms an operational definition of certain aspects, such as breakouts, it is possible to get results that are significant.
So where I would disagree is that charts do work more often than not, but for 2 reasons, it is hard to profit from them.
1. Recognizing a profitable opportunity/edge and actually being adept enough at trading, mastering psychology, well-capitalized, etc. to obtain the profit are two different things.
2. Many traders do not have operational definitions of what they are testing. So while you say that charts to not work more often than not, I can give you evidence that shows they do. However, you would have to agree with the definition of what I’m testing, and to make matters worse, the patterns I trade may not fit with your personality, and therefore, we are back to no edge at all from what is a tested and profitable strategy.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:48:17 pmI wasn’t necessarily making that claim, and I use charts frequently to aid in my timing.
It was a caveat.
I think some traders use charts as a magic ball, and what I’m saying is if you use them in conjunction with positive fundamentals, its a more beneficial analysis.
Some chart patterns are highly reliable IMO. EP, and areas of support/resistance seem to be statistically reliable. I have done no testing, just observation.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:15:54 pmThe “cock and balls” formation is classic. Almost as good as FUPA.
-DT
December 10th, 2007 at 2:27:12 pmThank you.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:50:02 pmExactly what DT said — made me laugh.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:32:46 amThat was me “D”
December 11th, 2007 at 12:04:45 pm