|
So, I like stocks and currencies.
PZZA is Papa John's, and I've got a prediction. The price will gap down on Monday, and head down towards $35. (within the week)
On the 18th, I believe, there was enough volume to break an EMA of 13. This means institutions and banks sold near the high of that day. The price itself is also about $10 above the 200 EMA, and hasn't touched it in a while. There hasn't been any correction yet on it's gap up on 2nd of May, and combined with the candle pattern of the Wed., Thur., and Fri, there should be a big jump down Monday.
Also, PZZA correlates a lot with it's peers. CMG, or Chipotle, just had a nasty drop of almost 22%. They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well.
I haven't played SC2 much since I've started getting into the markets.
Note: Don't take this advice. Do your own research if you partake in any investing or trading activies.
  
|
what's happening in the market that's causing fast food to drop?
|
Investors trying to outguess other investors
|
On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors
Exactly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesis
The weak EMH is relevant here.
It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing.
If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
|
I thought this would be about pizza T_T
|
17082 Posts
They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well.
I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen.
|
United States24803 Posts
On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen.
It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due!
|
If something is "due" to happen in the stock market, then it would have already happened.
|
On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
I guess my job is just me getting lucky all the time then
Damn i'm one lucky motherfucker
|
On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
would you like to play some poker with me.
|
On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
Can I see your portfolio? Can we play poker? Could you school me on game theory?
|
On July 23 2012 05:23 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time. Can I see your portfolio? Can we play poker? Could you school me on game theory?
The point is not whether you have a talent, but whether that talent is socially useful and whether we should be paying you so much for it.
|
On July 23 2012 03:11 Rinny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time. would you like to play some poker with me.
Poker=/=stocks. You totally missed the point if you thought the two had some sort of relation with each other. They are two totally different games and there's no market in poker.
It's been shown repeatedly and consistently that stocks picked at complete random will perform just as good on average as stocks picked by so-called experts on average. That's not to say that investers are useless, since they are the ones largely causing the stock market to be mostly efficient, but it does show that specific predictive statements that suggest the market can be beaten with research--like the OPs--are largely useless.
Can I see your portfolio? Can we play poker? Could you school me on game theory?
*sigh*
It's odd how this is such a reliable stereotype about finance men. "I've done so much research and worked really hard, I MUST be able to beat the market!". It's largely a field made up of smart, but arrogant men who will always embrace success as their own doing and failure as unpredictable acts of god.
Poker is not finance, and although I don't know who is more knowledgeable in game theory, in this case simple statistics is all that is needed to make my point: random walk investers do just as good as expert investors, and even the distribution of successful 'expert' investers follow statistical distributions that suggest primarily luck as the cause rather than the success of better analysis techniques.
Source: http://www.ifa.com/pdf/FalseDiscoveriesinMutualFundsSSRN.pdf
There's a lot more studies in the literature that say essentially the same thing which I can cite if you have access to pay-wall academic journals.
The best investing advice out there is to not bother paying 'experts' to invest your money for you.
I guess my job is just me getting lucky all the time then
Damn i'm one lucky motherfucker
Plot your success against the market average over your entire career/life. Are you really doing significantly better than market average? Even if you're doing better, are you doing significantly better? On average, roughly 50% of investors will be slightly above the average (more than 50% of career investors, since those that lose out early tend to go through the revolving finance door, while the bigger winners stick around).
If you really are doing significantly better than the market, congrats, you are in fact lucky.
|
On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due!
It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world.
|
On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors
Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros.
Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money.
TheKwas, I'm taking it that you don't actually have a single clue what you are talking about. Have you ever done anything concerning trading? I'm not an investor, something that clearly shows ignorance on your part. I am a trader. I rarely hold any position for more than a day. (The time frame noted in the OP should've given you an idea.)
You can take a lot from poker and apply it to the markets and vice versa.
When you say that picking a random stock is just as good as choosing a specific one, where's your evidence? On the link you have provided, they just simply come up with a formula to predict how many truly skilled fund managers there are in any given population. They can't actually get any real data, and they even say that.
If you look at OP, the scenario is actually very similar to another scenario I missed. GURE had a 20 and 50 SMA cross, where the 20 crossed above the 50. This is usually taken as a signal relative to what price has been doing. This happened on a Friday, and so for three entire days, the US market was able to see this. On Monday, the price gapped up too much for me to get in. This was around March.
I may show you a picture of my recent forex trades, which will show you a high percentage of being "lucky" as you like to say. It's not a big account by any means, but I'm sticking within the confines of money management. Then again, do you have any idea what the forex markets are?
|
On July 23 2012 15:39 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros. Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money.
I'm not the one making the point about success over random walk...
I don't disagree about the gamic quality of the market. My point is that it's not in the interests of society to run things in the way we do now, although parts of it are very good ideas.
|
On July 23 2012 12:03 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +
I guess my job is just me getting lucky all the time then
Damn i'm one lucky motherfucker
Plot your success against the market average over your entire career/life. Are you really doing significantly better than market average? Even if you're doing better, are you doing significantly better? On average, roughly 50% of investors will be slightly above the average (more than 50% of career investors, since those that lose out early tend to go through the revolving finance door, while the bigger winners stick around). If you really are doing significantly better than the market, congrats, you are in fact lucky.
lol
I'm a trader, i don't invest. I scalp futures spreads.
You're pretty much a moron if you believe any part of EMH, but unfortunately as far as actually making money from trading goes academia is SO behind the level of the market it's ridiculous
I'm not even sure if i should bother humouring you after you basically insult me and everyone in my building by calling us "lucky"
As with every prop firm, not everyone makes it, some guys come and go, but the ones who stay and really clean up do it because they slave their asses off staring at numbers 12 hours a day every single day.
If you want me to quantify my personal edge, i basically take advantage of illiquidity in back spreads and the inability to effectively price extremely hedged intra product spreads. Also, psychologically algorithms and market players can be very predictable and thus abused in these particular areas of markets since the primary players are other prop firms trying to take advantage of hedgers in the market.
|
United States24803 Posts
On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world.
I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are!
|
Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros.
Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money.
Flash has dominated the BW scene for years now. He probably has a good degree of luck, but he has a lot of skill to back it up. In a contest of BW skill where Flash has to face a monkey 100 or 1000 times in a row, Flash will win 100% of the time. BW (or even sc2!) doesn't produce results we would expect from random walks.
In a case where expert investors have to face monkeys throwing darts at the finance section, the monkeys will win just under 50% of the time (if i remember correctly studies say there's something like 2.5-3% average difference between actively managed funds and index funds, which is less than the fees you pay for the average managed fund). One game is based on luck a HELLALOT more than the other.
Monkeys aside, very, very few actively managed funds match or beat indexes consistently in the long run. The ones that do aren't doing anything significantly different than the others: take a few hundred guys flipping coins, and a few of them are bound to flip 25 heads in a row. The performance of managed funds can be plotted according to a normal distribution, exactly how we would it expect it to if the most determining factor in success was random chance.
When you say that picking a random stock is just as good as choosing a specific one, where's your evidence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/22stra.html?_r=1
I'm not even sure if i should bother humouring you after you basically insult me and everyone in my building by calling us "lucky"
That's hardly an insult. Hell, I wish i was lucky! An insult would be to say that most of the wall street industry has evolved into a bloated parasite on society. That's an insult, not at you individually, but at your industry.
Insults aside, humans are evolved to look for patterns in randomness. Superstitious of all kinds evolve from that human tendency.
If you want me to quantify my personal edge, i basically take advantage of illiquidity in back spreads and the inability to effectively price extremely hedged intra product spreads. I like to rub my monkey's belly before he throws the dart. That seems to help.
|
On July 23 2012 18:36 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros.
Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money. Flash has dominated the BW scene for years now. He probably has a good degree of luck, but he has a lot of skill to back it up. In a contest of BW skill where Flash has to face a monkey 100 or 1000 times in a row, Flash will win 100% of the time. BW (or even sc2!) doesn't produce results we would expect from random walks. In a case where expert investors have to face monkeys throwing darts at the finance section, the monkeys will win just under 50% of the time (if i remember correctly studies say there's something like 2.5-3% average difference between actively managed funds and index funds, which is less than the fees you pay for the average managed fund). One game is based on luck a HELLALOT more than the other. Monkeys aside, very, very few actively managed funds match or beat indexes consistently in the long run. The ones that do aren't doing anything significantly different than the others: take a few hundred guys flipping coins, and a few of them are bound to flip 25 heads in a row. The performance of managed funds can be plotted according to a normal distribution, exactly how we would it expect it to if the most determining factor in success was random chance. Show nested quote +When you say that picking a random stock is just as good as choosing a specific one, where's your evidence? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/22stra.html?_r=1Show nested quote +I'm not even sure if i should bother humouring you after you basically insult me and everyone in my building by calling us "lucky" That's hardly an insult. Hell, I wish i was lucky! An insult would be to say that most of the wall street industry has evolved into a bloated parasite on society. That's an insult, not at you individually, but at your industry. Insults aside, humans are evolved to look for patterns in randomness. Superstitious of all kinds evolve from that human tendency. Show nested quote +If you want me to quantify my personal edge, i basically take advantage of illiquidity in back spreads and the inability to effectively price extremely hedged intra product spreads. I like to rub my monkey's belly before he throws the dart. That seems to help.
Lmao, dude, you can't use a fucking NYT article as evidence. Even then, we aren't talking about holding a position for 20 fucking years. We aren't even talking about holding a position, as it may be too late to even get in as there could very be a gap down. Much reading comprehension?
You keep trying to pick something that is completely off topic. Learn the difference between trading and investing. Don't even respond to this until you have, because you know you don't know the difference.
Have you ever heard of the Golden Ratio? If you think there's a lot of randomness in the universe, you'd be very surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
