**** me... huge realisation about why trend followers survive longer...

arabianights · Feb 28, 2011

...in pretty much efficent markets.

Earlier today friendly member Jack O'Clubs inspired me to go looking for roulette lulz... yup, there are thousands of threadds all over about people who think they have a system for roulette.

Anyway, here's some "advice":

Erdnase52 said:
I see this system everyday along with the guys who play 2 sets of dozens. Its all great till you hit the wall, then the tears start and the "I cant believe it" moans begin, lol.
The best thing the casinos have done is to have reader boards on all the games, makes it easier for the dunces who walk by and can see red has come up 5 times in a row and cant possibly come up again. People ask me whats the most number of times i have spun a color and i tell them 16 in a row and when i did it NO ONE MADE A DIME ! To me i learned when gambling, either bet with the flow or do nothing. if you decide to go with the flow and you lose, you have only lost once, you go up against it, no telling how many you can lose. I dont even try to explain it to players anymore because its just a waste of time. They gots to learn the hard way, lol.

So... what's my point? Simple. The unsuccessful trend followers will do so many less trades as they wait for confirmation of the trend, while the unsuccessful mean reverters, averagers, value players, whatever, will get to do a considerable lot more trades in the same time period.

Therefore whenever one looks at the population of "successful" outright traders one will see more trend followers. It will be fallacious to conclude this is the best way of trading... but it's what you will conclude... on the markets as much as the roulette wheel!

Pazienza · Feb 28, 2011

I think you need a hobby.

Scotty2Cues · Feb 28, 2011

Pazienza said:
I think you need a hobby.

perhaps it is his hobby

TheBramble · Feb 28, 2011

Did you use the word "unsuccessful" more times than you intended? Serious question.

If I get two up bars, three up bars, four up bars in a row, I may surmise with some confidence that more than 50/100 times there is a better than 50/100 chance of getting another up bar.

If I get two reds, three reds, four reds in a row in roulette, I don't have the same confidence in getting another red.

Scotty2Cues · Feb 28, 2011

arabianights said:
...in pretty much efficent markets.

Earlier today friendly member Jack O'Clubs inspired me to go looking for roulette lulz... yup, there are thousands of threadds all over about people who think they have a system for roulette.

Anyway, here's some "advice":

So... what's my point? Simple. The unsuccessful trend followers will do so many less trades as they wait for confirmation of the trend, while the unsuccessful mean reverters, averagers, value players, whatever, will get to do a considerable lot more trades in the same time period.

Therefore whenever one looks at the population of "successful" outright traders one will see more trend followers. It will be fallacious to conclude this is the best way of trading... but it's what you will conclude... on the markets as much as the roulette wheel!

they may have less trades but dont they still need a minimum amount before it can be decided how (un)successful they are?

robster970 · Feb 28, 2011

arabianights said:
...in pretty much efficent markets.

Earlier today friendly member Jack O'Clubs inspired me to go looking for roulette lulz... yup, there are thousands of threadds all over about people who think they have a system for roulette.

Anyway, here's some "advice":

So... what's my point? Simple. The unsuccessful trend followers will do so many less trades as they wait for confirmation of the trend, while the unsuccessful mean reverters, averagers, value players, whatever, will get to do a considerable lot more trades in the same time period.

Therefore whenever one looks at the population of "successful" outright traders one will see more trend followers. It will be fallacious to conclude this is the best way of trading... but it's what you will conclude... on the markets as much as the roulette wheel!

Are you saying that trend followers trade less frequently so survivorship bias leads people to conclude that trend following is good?

TheBramble · Feb 28, 2011

Has Arabian accidentally started a serious, interesting or useful thread?

Come on Howard, come and trash it!

robster970 · Feb 28, 2011

No chance Tony. It's Arabian, it must be lulz.

arabianights · Feb 28, 2011

Pazienza said:
I think you need a hobby.

I've had too many hobbies.... I'm spent on the *******s.

Pazienza · Feb 28, 2011

robster970 said:
No chance Tony. It's Arabian, it must be lulz.

Lulz and seriousness are not mutually exclusive.

arabianights · Feb 28, 2011

Furthermore (and I assume this has occurred to the more thoughtful readers, amongst whom I count all the current respondents) this would even occur if the market were somewhat mean reverting in character. For simplicity's sake, let's assume very basic trend following strategies versus very basic mean reverting strategies... the former have larger stops than the latter!

So -EV strategies may in fact survive longer!

robster970 · Feb 28, 2011

Isn't this just a function of trade frequency Arabian, stop size playing a part in this too?

robster970 · Feb 28, 2011

Pazienza said:
Lulz and seriousness are not mutually exclusive.

Only when it's time for serious lulz my friend.

TheBramble · Feb 28, 2011

robster970 said:
No chance Tony. It's Arabian, it must be lulz.

No. No!

He could have fcked up?

robster970 · Feb 28, 2011

TheBramble said:
No. No!

He could have fcked up?

Jesus - can we make it a sticky to remind us of that time he asked a serious question?

TheBramble · Feb 28, 2011

Pazienza said:
Lulz and seriousness are not mutually exclusive.

Awww...now you've gone and made me post some old guy's quote:-

"Humour is the only test of gravity and gravity of humour. For a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious and a jest which will not bear a serious examination is certainly false wit."

TheBramble · Feb 28, 2011

robster970 said:
Jesus - can we make it a sticky to remind us of that time he asked a serious question?

Well hey ho nonny ney...I'm not sure it's serious. Maybe I'm just taking it seriously.

Pazienza · Feb 28, 2011

TheBramble said:
Awww...now you've gone and made me post some old guy's quote:-

"Humour is the only test of gravity and gravity of humour. For a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious and a jest which will not bear a serious examination is certainly false wit."

Excellent!

robster970 · Feb 28, 2011

TheBramble said:
Well hey ho nonny ney...I'm not sure it's serious. Maybe I'm just taking it seriously.

Your right Bramble - he's on HC's thread checking out a picture of Sarah Palin in a bikini. Normality has resumed. Nothing to see here now, move along folks.

TheBramble · Feb 28, 2011

arabianights said:
let's assume very basic trend following strategies versus very basic mean reverting strategies... the former have larger stops than the latter!

Erm..guess I must be doing something wrong then.

Doesn't reversion to mean require the reversion to have already commenced? And for a trend play , for it to merely have halted its contra move? Moving 'away from' (reversion) covers more ground more quickly than 'slowing to a stop' (trend resumes).

The relative stop sizes in each scenario will reflect the momentum in each situation.

**** me... huge realisation about why trend followers survive longer...

Legendary member

Senior member

Established member

Legendary member

Established member

Guest Author

Legendary member

Guest Author

Legendary member

Senior member

Legendary member

Guest Author

Guest Author

Legendary member

Guest Author

Legendary member

Legendary member

Senior member

Guest Author

Legendary member

Similar threads