Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

SIUYA

Market Models and Randomness

Recommended Posts

An interesting article on markets and movements from a thought experiment and resoning point of view for those interested.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/a-bar-may-be-best-place-to-understand-markets-commentary-by-mark-buchanan.html

 

and the link in the article to about inductive reasoning and how it can apply to markets.....and forum threads/posts

 

http://phys.ubbcluj.ro/~zneda/edu/mc/minority-game2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting article on markets and movements from a thought experiment and resoning point of view for those interested.

 

A Bar May Be the Place to Understand Markets: Buchanan - Bloomberg

 

and the link in the article to about inductive reasoning and how it can apply to markets.....and forum threads/posts

 

http://phys.ubbcluj.ro/~zneda/edu/mc/minority-game2.pdf

 

I would like to reopen this thread.I think it got lost in the ether.

It is a bit hard to follow, but its offers some eye opening ideas on deduction

Especially the ability to see patterns more easily than pure analysis.

Thus the big TA following with charts

And all those posters on "Dont be fooled by randomness" should have a look.

regards

bobc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont follow the maths too much but there is a lot more recent information on the mathematics of tipping points that probably is similarly related.

 

There was also an article that uses riot mathematics to talk about how crowds either get going into a riot or dissipate quietly. Tim Harford touches on such subjects that can lead to further investigation if you like.

 

Tim Harford — Article — The random side of riots

 

basically while most might be rational, they have a tendency to become irrational not because their mind set has changed but because others around them have....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that I have with this analogy is that several of the inputs are more static than they would be in most market scenarios. The club's capacity remains constant from week to week, as does the population of potential attendees (or "clubgoers", as I believe they're called :) ).

 

Traded price can be viewed as a noisy measurement of an asset's true underlying value, but this value is not constant and changes over time according to a non-linear process.

 

My guess is that rather than trying to incorporate fat tail events - sudden non-stochastic price jumps - into the model, it would be better to use them as a cue to reset the model. The model, after all, is not built to measure them. Maybe this explains why so many HFTs supposedly step aside when volatility rises?

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-buchanan.html....."

 

I noticed a comment:

 

"Steeloak 11 months ago 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand

As a trader, I long ago learned not to guess why the market is doing something, I simply wait to see what the market is doing & get onboard the trend. I do trade around news events, but only to see how the market reacts, not to guess what it will do.

 

Other than that, it is simply cut my losses short & let my winners run. Sounds easy, but it has taken me 5 years to get good at it.

 

I think anyone who says they can predict markets, or knows the reasons why the market is doing what it is doing is just talking through their hat."

 

I just wonder why he handled simply cut losses short and let winners run took so long to get good at it..... Indeed this is the question I am thinking to about it this year. I think days and nights, and even in my dream..........

 

Anyhow, thanks for bring out this question and have a good profit trades next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue that I have with this analogy is that several of the inputs are more static than they would be in most market scenarios. The club's capacity remains constant from week to week, as does the population of potential attendees (or "clubgoers", as I believe they're called :) ).

 

Traded price can be viewed as a noisy measurement of an asset's true underlying value, but this value is not constant and changes over time according to a non-linear process.

 

My guess is that rather than trying to incorporate fat tail events - sudden non-stochastic price jumps - into the model, it would be better to use them as a cue to reset the model. The model, after all, is not built to measure them. Maybe this explains why so many HFTs supposedly step aside when volatility rises?

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

good point.

 

Comparing the market to riots....

 

Maybe given the huge number of participants (hence the average might be similar), the common goal of making money and the huge influence of index trackers etc, maybe the population of the markets and the inputs is itself relatively static (apart from a few excessive times of volatility).

As for the changing values of an asset, are not the morals/values/concerns of society also changing over time.

Also isnt this one of the main points of the randomness arguments - be it crowds or markets. Why is it that normal event s can be triggered into abnormal events. For markets drifting away from value is normal, but being able to consistently proift from it should not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good point.

 

Comparing the market to riots....

 

Maybe given the huge number of participants (hence the average might be similar), the common goal of making money and the huge influence of index trackers etc, maybe the population of the markets and the inputs is itself relatively static (apart from a few excessive times of volatility).

As for the changing values of an asset, are not the morals/values/concerns of society also changing over time.

Also isnt this one of the main points of the randomness arguments - be it crowds or markets. Why is it that normal event s can be triggered into abnormal events. For markets drifting away from value is normal, but being able to consistently proift from it should not be.

 

Yes, the flip-side to complaining about aberrant models is probably to acknowledge that to make money one only needs a model that works more often than not (or rather, loses less when it's wrong than it makes when it's right).

 

Being pedantic but . . .

 

the common goal of making money

 

As you have pointed out yourself in other threads, the ways in which many participants make money has nothing to do with whether they're buying or selling the particular market you trade right now. StatArb, actual arbitrage, hedging, re-balancing, gaming another participant, or just executing a very large order for a rich but naive heir - there are countless reasons to go to the club, even if you don't like crowds or dancing . . .

 

I find it interesting (I've been reading Taleb's 'The Black Swan' recently) that even those who acknowledge randomness don't really know how to profit from it in addition to profiting the rest of the time. Probably it just isn't possible.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.