Bitcoin Forum

Will post (as quote) those comments in here that I deleted from my other threads (usually in the Speculation subforum). The idea is to introduce some amount of accountability for the mod decisions in my threads...

Is this allowed in here, by the rules of 'off-topic'? Let me know if that's not the case.

Doing fine, thanks :)

Still sitting on a ~1591 USD position... backtested, still no live signal. Don't worry, I'll update once that happens.

Because it was completely off-topic, and quite clearly a loaded question.

So: content free (in the context of my thread), and trolling, ergo: deleted.

It questioned your TA abilities.  If your "Lazy Wale" algorithm netted junk results, why should anyone take this TA iteration any more seriously?
This thread is nothing more than scientified book talk.

See, that's the talk I don't mind one bit. Why not ask it in the thread I made about the algo?

But to be clear: what are the junk results of the algo in your opinion? That it still didn't give a 'buy' signal? When we're actually back down to 330/340? Seems good to me.

EDIT: also, I had this argument with aminorex in the past at least once: not everyone talks his/her book. I have talked "against my own book" quite a few times in the past. The reason is really pretty simple: my own "book" is defined by relatively short term considerations. The threads / posts I like to make are about longer term speculation, so the two don't need to match.

It's junk because it failed to yield any results.  The utility of your algorithm appears to be exactly zero--neither positive nor negative.  Without knowing the actual ruleset (which you chose not to share), I can only assume that it's junk :-\

The "do not panic" thread seems to also be somewhat self-serving.  What relevance did the Obama +1 Meme have that my question did not?

LOL good one. 

PS - Time to quit faking by putting a carrot on your head...nobody believes you are a unicorn!

TonyT

Nothing to add on the algo remark. Whether it has zero utility (your idea) or decent utility based on a low number of signals (my idea) is the point of the public experiment.  A bit self-aggrandizing to post it the way I do, maybe, but hey... you're not free of that vice either.

Agreed on the other point. Kinda arbitrary decision I guess. See, that's why self-modded threads suck?

^
OK.  My thoughts re. long-term TA strategies in general is too many variables have a chance to crop up--major news and stuff.  Just seems like TA is more useful in finding short, repeating patterns which could be rapidly confirmed/denied.  Longer period -> fewer data points -> less accessible to statistical analysis.
Just an opinion.

Complete agreement on that. Hence, "TA strategies" that are up to academic publishing standards usually look like the Bayesian regression method by Shah / Zhang, with trades being less than a minute apart.

So, no, absolutely no chance for me to show that my method produces statistically significant results based on the backtest results, way too few data points for that. But I said that much right from the beginning.

Guess it runs down to the question if the only methods (not just in TA) that you are willing to employ are those that can be fully rigorously shown to work, or if you allow including those that you have strong enough reasons to believe are working as well, but where those reasons can't be formalized to the point where you can show it in a "publishable" way. My example of choice in this context is chess opening theory, and the early (failed) attempts of chess algorithms beating human GMs practicing opening (or end game) theory.

There was a academic study reported in the Economist this year that found trading during long, cold northern winters was bullish (the colder the weather, the more bullish).  Data mining IMO.

TonyT