For sure it would be fun. I higly recommend a datscan for all active Trader.I think we attend the same event.

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaI'd imagine that cold reading would an intensely useful skill in pit trading and poker where you can readily profit from reading the body language of your fellow participants. The problem is that those pit traders who have a "tell" will quickly lose all their money and lose their job as pit traders. natural selection will flush away all the readable traders and only those who cannot be read will survive. The same is true in electronic markets. Some idiots will be eaten by the hedge funds who "read" their subtle trades and pick them off. But those idiots will lose their money and stop trading rather quickly. The traders who are left to dominate the market remain only because they are unreadable. In the long run, there is no easy pickins for anyone. Very true! And yet we have a steady stream of new readable market participants, old readable participants who have gullible clients, veterans who develop a "tell" over time, and unreadable veterans who become big fund managers that then delegate trading to readable flunkies. And lets not forget the delicious possibility of readable central bankers and other market functionaries who aren't judged on P&L so they experience little of this Darwinian winnowing. Given the high rate of turn-over among traders, fund managers et al, I'd not be surprised if the equilibrium value for readablity is quite high.Happy Trading!

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: trackstarIt doesn't work if you try to go head on and get direct answers. You need to take an orthogonal approach...May take years of apprenticeship and observation. Is there a successful mutual fund based on psychic stock picking? My psychic says I might want to invest! Of course. It is called due dilligence and fund of funds.You bet on the manager, not on the fund. You can't imagine how painfull it is sometime. You try to select funds against "realistic criteria"; you try to take guarantee ("Are you already big ?????"); and you try to understand what the guy is going to do. Well for sure, if you understand the way he works, then you find all the correlations. And that's the road to glory. On the others hand, some belive that it is possible to invest in a managed account without knowing the strategy and a promise of a two digits return just because someone told them to keep the secret and that they were the "chosen". But; in this case, you are not buying the stocks. It is in your mind. It doesn't exists. So I think that it fit into the "psychic stock pickin" ? ;-)Perhaps in the next Fix version there will be a "mental block order" possibility.

QuoteOriginally posted by: fredbasome belive that it is possible to invest in a managed account without knowing the strategy and a promise of a two digits return just because someone told them to keep the secret and that they were the "chosen". But; in this case, you are not buying the stocks. It is in your mind. It doesn't exists. So I think that it fit into the "psychic stock pickin" ? all forecasting is a pretension to be psychic. What's the difference really between reading tea leaves, charting trading volume, or fitting a time series? They are all forms of voodoo psychic extrapolation.

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: fredbasome belive that it is possible to invest in a managed account without knowing the strategy and a promise of a two digits return just because someone told them to keep the secret and that they were the "chosen". But; in this case, you are not buying the stocks. It is in your mind. It doesn't exists. So I think that it fit into the "psychic stock pickin" ? all forecasting is a pretension to be psychic. What's the difference really between reading tea leaves, charting trading volume, or fitting a time series? They are all forms of voodoo psychic extrapolation. There is a pretty good, though short, discussion of voodoo in QF here: Rogers Veraart

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXA model has obviously some limitations. it's the same in EVERY natural science in fact (and especially in physics). When you say that the light is a photon or an electromagnetic field. Have you already seen a photon ? or a magnetic field ? You only see the consequences of your theory.I agree. But what most people don't bear in mind is the fact that finance (as a branch of economics) is a "normative" science and not a "positive" one. This point is for me extremely important.

QuoteOriginally posted by: matuni the fact that finance (as a branch of economics) is a "normative" science and not a "positive" one. This point is for me extremely important. physics at the core is also normative. physicist believe in certain premises like constancy of the the speed of light and constancy of the physical laws even though they cannot test whether the speed of light is the same in +4 billion years or -4 billion years.

QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: matuni the fact that finance (as a branch of economics) is a "normative" science and not a "positive" one. This point is for me extremely important. physics at the core is also normative. physicist believe in certain premises like constancy of the the speed of light and constancy of the physical laws even though they cannot test whether the speed of light is the same in +4 billion years or -4 billion years. Actually you raised a very good point and from a few now the constancy of the so called fundamental constant is under question.The 4 fundamental constants are : h the Planck constant, c the speed of the light, G the gravitation constant and k the Boltzman constant.But to built up a theory you need some invariants, and those constants can be effectively considered as constant in a given time frame. And PS I know physicists if they prove that the constant are not constant the just change the law (or formula) behind and not the constant itself

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXAnd PS I know physicists if they prove that the constant are not constant the just change the law (or formula) behind and not the constant itself physicists accept that the laws of physics are mathematically sensible. they accept this like religion. they cannot grasp a system where math does not apply. unfortunately, the capital markets are such a world, where the mathematical "laws" are never precise or accurate, or time invariant. It is not a matter of "knowing" the rules -- it's really that you cannot use math to model or express those rules because capital markets do not follow mechanical mathematical rules. Markets, like people, are smart, creative, and emotional.

Good physicists know that their model are false. the only infinite accuracy only exist in the perfect abstract world of maths.As I said to Cuchulainn one day when I lauch my 3 days fancy simulation (defitively not optimized )and I got the result for example I=6*1e14W/cm^2, I say to myself so ok the REAL value should be between 1e13W/cm² and1e15W/cm² (value of the intensity of the laser). Know your weapon as Collector would say and know your weapon here know the limits

I'm pretty sure you all do not underestimate the power of a coin flip when needing an immediate "random" decision. Do you?

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrun 2e22 W/cm^2, IRL (no simulation) Which installation ? But later we will have this. ELI ELI 1e25W/cm²

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXGood physicists know that their model are false. the only infinite accuracy only exist in the perfect abstract world of maths. good physicists cannot comprehend that there are many things that don't even obey any mathematical laws. for example, is there a mathematical law that will predict what your GRE score is?

QuoteOriginally posted by: deepvalueQuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXGood physicists know that their model are false. the only infinite accuracy only exist in the perfect abstract world of maths. good physicists cannot comprehend that there are many things that don't even obey any mathematical laws. for example, is there a mathematical law that will predict what your GRE score is?I agree that it is very dangerous to use maths for any purpose (especially quantitative ones). But you know modelling occurs now everywhere (physics,econmoy, biology, even social science and psychology). Model something and predict an event for me is different. Maths are often use to built a logic path to clarify (ok LOL sometimes it's not really clear ) a process, to understand it. Some theories are definitively not predictive (example quantum mechanics which give you a probabilistic result for a measure)For a physicist, we have to understand that maybe we do not explain the true reality of the Nature but we only "fit" the consequences. It is the well known debate realism of a theory .Math is the science to construct an abstract truth by building a logic path from a minimalistic postulate to the wanted theorem. Physic is the science to use the tool of math to try to explain the natural events which surrounds us.