If there's an election dispute, and I hope there's not, that could hold up stimulus well into December and will likely keep the markets volatile.
Hopefully the winner is explicit so stimulus comes and I can just buy SPY and QQQ calls for the next two months.
Post-election market crash -- bets?
If there's an election dispute, and I hope there's not, that could hold up stimulus well into December and will likely keep the markets volatile.
Hopefully the winner is explicit so stimulus comes and I can just buy SPY and QQQ calls for the next two months.
Post-election market crash -- bets?
I'll hold my bet until I see how the election goes.
If it is close and the winner is unclear then a market crash is extremely probable imo.
We are already going through a leg up on the VIX because stimulus is being held up again, the markets will lose their shit if they have to wait another month and I don't think this is priced in at the moment.
I'll hold my bet until I see how the election goes.
If it is close and the winner is unclear then a market crash is extremely probable imo.
We are already going through a leg up on the VIX because stimulus is being held up again, the markets will lose their shit if they have to wait another month and I don't think this is priced in at the moment.
I will bet one red wine bottle on the post-election market crash. The red wine is to be exchanged at the SC meet-up, if that thing ever materializes.
I'll hold my bet until I see how the election goes.
If it is close and the winner is unclear then a market crash is extremely probable imo.
We are already going through a leg up on the VIX because stimulus is being held up again, the markets will lose their shit if they have to wait another month and I don't think this is priced in at the moment.
I will bet one red wine bottle on the post-election market crash. The red wine is to be exchanged at the SC meet-up, if that thing ever materializes.
What makes you so sure? I'll take you on the bet, if it crashes by Jan 1st I'll buy a bottle at the SC meet up.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unrelated to the above.
In Fama's 65 paper The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices he starts by asking a key question,
To what extent can the past history of a common stocks price be used to make meaningful predictions concerning the future price of the stock?
I love this because the determinism of a set of dynamical laws is usually taken for granted and as such the assumptions that determinism is built out of are often misunderstood and or completely ignored.
I'm only stating this because I've been reading a lot into modeling these last few months and exploring it through a multitude of sciences and some fields are definitely more rigorous than others. I notice that the ones with solid grand to sand on not only begin with this question of determinism but continue with.
If you don't know the limits of the model your making nor the assumptions its built on you cannot verify the validity of its predictability.
What makes you so sure? I'll take you on the bet, if it crashes by Jan 1st I'll buy a bottle at the SC meet up.
Great, I will hold you to that.
Unrelated to the above.
In Fama's 65 paper The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices he starts by asking a key question,
To what extent can the past history of a common stocks price be used to make meaningful predictions concerning the future price of the stock?
I love this because the determinism of a set of dynamical laws is usually taken for granted and as such the assumptions that determinism is built out of are often misunderstood and or completely ignored.
This was the part that frustrated me when reading about stock market modeling. The underlying axioms were never discussed at any length, but were simply taken for granted. Most resources seem to be geared toward people that have no math/science background.
I'm only stating this because I've been reading a lot into modeling these last few months and exploring it through a multitude of sciences and some fields are definitely more rigorous than others. I notice that the ones with solid grand to sand on not only begin with this question of determinism but continue with.
Yeah? Let me know if you come up with anything interesting.
If you don't know the limits of the model your making nor the assumptions its built on you cannot verify the validity of its predictability.
So this is at the heart of Bayesian analysis. We can use purely deductive logic to build a model based on a few axioms. Inductive logic is all about putting those axioms to the test and determining which model best fits the data.
What makes you so sure? I'll take you on the bet, if it crashes by Jan 1st I'll buy a bottle at the SC meet up.
Great, I will hold you to that.
Unrelated to the above.
In Fama's 65 paper The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices he starts by asking a key question,
To what extent can the past history of a common stocks price be used to make meaningful predictions concerning the future price of the stock?
I love this because the determinism of a set of dynamical laws is usually taken for granted and as such the assumptions that determinism is built out of are often misunderstood and or completely ignored.
This was the part that frustrated me when reading about stock market modeling. The underlying axioms were never discussed at any length, but were simply taken for granted. Most resources seem to be geared toward people that have no math/science background.
The fundamental assumption seems to be all price fluctuations are independent and fundamentally random EVEN THOUGH the information that generates noise is dependent.
I have no problem with it I just dislike that there's very little explanation on why this true. In fact I find that when mentioned it's assumed false yet used anyway in light of no better alternative.
I'm only stating this because I've been reading a lot into modeling these last few months and exploring it through a multitude of sciences and some fields are definitely more rigorous than others. I notice that the ones with solid grand to sand on not only begin with this question of determinism but continue with.
Yeah? Let me know if you come up with anything interesting.
If you don't know the limits of the model your making nor the assumptions its built on you cannot verify the validity of its predictability.
So this is at the heart of Bayesian analysis. We can use purely deductive logic to build a model based on a few axioms. Inductive logic is all about putting those axioms to the test and determining which model best fits the data.
You'll take any chance you get to mention Bayes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the moment I am pretty just studying the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Random Walk Theory and Stochastics in general, and potential Alternatives.
Not messing with my actual real time trading system all that much as it is profitable enough and I'm seemingly too ignorant to push it to the heights I want it to reach. So I will just make money and study what I need to push it to the next level for now.
The fundamental assumption seems to be all price fluctuations are independent and fundamentally random EVEN THOUGH the information that generates noise is dependent.
I have no problem with it I just dislike that there's very little explanation on why this true. In fact I find that when mentioned it's assumed false yet used anyway in light of no better alternative.
I don't find that assumption to be all that convincing, either. It doesn't explain the anomalies (momentum, mean reversion).
I feel like the starting point should be supply and demand.
You'll take any chance you get to mention Bayes.
Lord Bayes changed my life.
At the moment I am pretty just studying the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Random Walk Theory and Stochastics in general, and potential Alternatives.
Do you have a derivation of the efficient market hypothesis? I looked at the original derivation, but the pdf was really low-quality and I couldn't quite make out all the steps.
Not messing with my actual real time trading system all that much as it is profitable enough and I'm seemingly too ignorant to push it to the heights I want it to reach. So I will just make money and study what I need to push it to the next level for now.
Sounds cool. Let me know how that goes.
The fundamental assumption seems to be all price fluctuations are independent and fundamentally random EVEN THOUGH the information that generates noise is dependent.
I have no problem with it I just dislike that there's very little explanation on why this true. In fact I find that when mentioned it's assumed false yet used anyway in light of no better alternative.
I don't find that assumption to be all that convincing, either. It doesn't explain the anomalies (momentum, mean reversion).
I feel like the starting point should be supply and demand.
You'll take any chance you get to mention Bayes.
Lord Bayes changed my life.
At the moment I am pretty just studying the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Random Walk Theory and Stochastics in general, and potential Alternatives.
Do you have a derivation of the efficient market hypothesis? I looked at the original derivation, but the pdf was really low-quality and I couldn't quite make out all the steps.
From which paper?
Do you mean Bachelier-Osborne model or Bacheliers before that?
From which paper?
Do you mean Bachelier-Osborne model or Bacheliers before that?
It's not the very original one, but his derivation at least makes sense to me (or least the parts I can read do).
From which paper?
Do you mean Bachelier-Osborne model or Bacheliers before that?
It's not the very original one, but his derivation at least makes sense to me (or least the parts I can read do).
I've never come across this paper.
In so far as an 'original derivation' goes I'm not sure there is one per say as it relates to Random Walk theory.
Bacheilier's Theory of Speculation is the OG I guess while the real mathematical framework begins with Levy, Wiener, and Ito.
I'm not sure of any real conclusive combinations of these into singular ideas until the 60's when Fama and Cooter start to put out their Hypothesis.
It could be a matter of the development of EMH or Random Walk Theory in general.
I assume you are trying verify EMH? Proof of its validity? I don't think you can and in fact the opposite has already been done with Grossman and Stiglitz
In so far as proving the validity of random walk theory as an approach at all goes, join the club.
This field is a mess.
