It is absolutely not a random walk, get a clue.

For starters, one of the biggest things influencing asset prices is the currency in which they are priced. Supply of USD is not random. The trend is clear. The value of the dollar goes down over time. It is intentional and mandated by the Fed...

This creates an upward bias in asset prices and is anything but random.

Your charting skills are amazing though...

Of course it's a random walk. That's what random walks look like. I generated it at Wolfram Alpha and posted the screenshot of it above. You can generate your own and see how nearly every graph creates reliable, highly tradable TA patterns in pure noise.

Here's another one...full of support and resistance and big break through resistance taking it to a new trading range



If you trade technicals you should generate hundreds of random walks just for your own education, so you can see how many false positive exist and how they're causing total delusions and destroying your alpha.

No, you are not addressing my point with the above data. The set of data from which your random walk was generated appears to be all positive integers (or w.e. 0 =< {population} =<120).

This is a sampling bias.

Take the zero line to be the beginning of reliable stock market data. There is a reason that we do not see asset prices dip below it. It is the currency, (in a simple sense) an independent variable in this case (it has a negative bias, again as mandated by the Fed, and therefore, all else being equal, puts an upward bias on asset prices--AND IS NOT RANDOM).

While it would not make me wrong, if you adjusted for the affect of the currency you would at least be addressing my argument.

Yeah the thesis was institutional money buying up with the change. This kind of thing is right in the institutional wheelhouse. I don't know where it stops. I think the stock is a turd and still overvalued at $280 let alone $320, but if you want to keep front running the useless institutional buyers with a stop, I can't fault it too much.

I played it with next week calls so that huge run was a good spot to take the profit.

lololol. A random walk starts at 0. It adds 1 or -1 to each step randomly. The end. There is no sampling bias in a random walk. Are you kidding me?

WTF dude. A random walk that's shifted up to start at 200 or has any size step you choose is still a random walk. Your objections are meaningless. The point is that random walks generate copious strong TA signals, showing how flawed TA signals are.

Your argument is that currency moves are "real" TA signals, therefore US stocks have "real" TA signals in them? I'm not following.

No there is not supposed to be. And maybe there wasn't in that experiment, IDK. I just said it appears to be that way. Run it 5 or 10 times, is the last data point ever below 0? Doesn't really matter...

No, I am not talking about the size of the steps. To use your language, I am talking about--in the case of the stock market--the fact that the 1s are chosen much more frequently than the -1s.

I am not reading tea leaves, this is not a coincidence of the randomess of the data, the bias exists because the Federal Reserve targets inflation.

THIS IS NOT RANDOM BEHAVIOR.

Further, my position does not rest on this, it is just one example of non-random behavior in the markets. AND THEREFORE, DISPROVES the notion that price actin is a random walk...

this is an incredibly dumb hill to die on.

No.

If 95% of Wall Street were to arbitrarily decide that a chart pattern that looks like an alligator is a buy signal, would you consider the alligator a buying opportunity?

Disregard the fact that many of your randomwalks could potentially draw pictures of alligators. or crocodiles.

that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a random walk

If the bolded is your thesis, shorting those restaurants and buying stocks like MCD that are automating the **** out of everything seems like a reasonable play.

I suspect you generated multiple random walks before you found one that you thought would be a good one to post (or at least would have if you felt the first one didn't make your point). Therefore there's a sampling bias and it's not a random walk.

The problem with the gator/croc signal is that it's difficult to identify whether it's an alligator or crocodile and hence you can't be sure whether the price will surge later or in a while.

i was going to point this out too, but let's concede that there's a chance his first randomwalk found some sweet support/resistance lines. it doesn't have anything to do with TA.

to find support/resistance in randomwalks and then arrive at the conclusion that TA is flawed is misguided.

here's the first randomwalk i did. some decent support/resistance points, but the main thing i'm noticing is that there's an alligator formation appearing.

Huh? Might be confusing me with someone else...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

waoowwww first random walk i generated i made all the alligator $$$$

That's amazing, do you guys see any alligator formations forming currently? Please post here or PM me when you do

Please, do explain...

You just missed one but if you buy now you might still catch some of the $$$$




UPDATE: It's breaking out into an open-jawed, feeding alligator. This could run!!!!

Of course, it is necessary for support and resistance to be visible in a random walk if its bull**** but it does not sufficiently prove that it is bull****. Pretty simple logic. There would be multiple ways to prove that it is bull**** but this is not a way. One way, would be to prove that market prices are a random walk.

No. Do you see why?
I got lucky on the second one...lovely patterns with 10+ indicators are maybe 1 in 5 to 1 in 10.

Explain to me how this is different to going looking for indicators to trade? You look at 10+ charts and time frames before you see a setup you like, usually. You trade maybe 1 in 50 of the charts situations you look at. I have less data snooping in finding my beautiful random walks than chartists do.
The copious support/resistance in random shows that:

- Strong yet completely fake TA signals frequently appear in pure noise (and hence in real data), and therefore the TA patterns you see are usually your cuck mind being fooled by noise rather than actual signals, even if TA is real
- Given this low signal to noise ratio, rejecting strong fundamental plays on the basis of technicals (as rand did and then later claimed he was lying) is alpha destroying stupidity.
- Most of the guys trading technicals are mouth breathing morons, since, if technicals are real, you could do some fairly robust analysis to remove the noise and greatly improve the signal - but the people here don't do that.
- Given all of the above, people here hugely overweight technicals in their decision making.

That's all. I'm not making some grand claim that random walks invalidate support and resistance. A number of academic studies do that perfectly well and quite robustly.

you aren't buying the alligator signal so really the rest of your post is drivel. DUCY?

That was a sharp reversal after the fed minutes

it does seem like the house of cards is really building up but unless there is an actual economic slowdown seems unlikely that stocks would reverse course that much.

I actually spit out my cola. Still laughing.