Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Easy to tell in hindsight. The trade was a valid setup where price is breaking a trendline, followed by a small pullback and a reversal bar in the direction of the breakout. I don't see anything horrible here.
Thanx Mike , for some thing new to us.
Just for test, here i drew 5 random lines for 4-Jan session on NiftyFuture chart.
Will carry-out this for few days and post.
These numbers are generated from Random.Org and in sequence given.
God , how "Random" knew it has "some thing" upside ...its day, its moment, everything coincides with it. Cy
The diversity in analytic techniques, time frames, motivation, and perception of data, insures that the struggle between supply and demand will be lumpy over certain periods of time, which consequently leads to a non-linear effect on price. These price changes themselves affect traders’ perception of value. The result is a hyper-sensitive system, where various drivers of price have a chaotic effect on outcomes, and make prediction difficult.
Yet, if traders truly believed that the market did not follow a deterministic pattern, there would be no traders. Instead they choose to adhere to the principle that there is a relative probability that outcomes can be approximated. TA reflects the different psychological states of market participants, QA reflects the automated constraints of mean reversion, and in effect may be the strange attractors that allow us just enough an edge to profit.
IMO the Random walk theory applies to longer time frames, if you are a day trader drawing and hitting your random lines is pure chance, the conclusions are purely subjective.
Courtesy of Investopedia
“[SIZE=2][COLOR=windowtext][I]Random walk theory[/I][/SIZE] gained popularity in 1973 when Burton Malkiel wrote "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", a book that is now regarded as an investment classic. Random walk is a stock market theory that states that the past movement or direction of the price of a stock or overall market cannot be used to predict its future movement. Originally examined by Maurice Kendall in 1953, the theory states that stock price fluctuations are independent of each other and have the same probability distribution, but that over a period of time, prices maintain an upward trend.[/COLOR] In short, random walk says that stocks take a random and unpredictable path. The chance of a stock's future price going up is the same as it going down. A follower of random walk believes it is impossible to outperform the market without assuming additional risk. In his book, Malkiel preaches that both [SIZE=2][COLOR=windowtext][I]technical analysis[/I][/SIZE] and [SIZE=2][COLOR=windowtext][I]fundamental analysis[/I][/COLOR][/SIZE] are largely a waste of time and are still unproven in outperforming the markets. [/COLOR]
While many still follow the preaching of Malkiel, others believe that the investing landscape is very different than it was when Malkiel wrote his book nearly 30 years ago. Today, everyone has easy and fast access to relevant news and stock quotes. Investing is no longer a game for the privileged. Random walk has never been a popular concept with those on [COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][I]Wall Street[/I][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR], probably because it condemns the concepts on which it is based such as analysis and stock picking.
It's hard to say how much truth there is to this theory; there is evidence that supports both sides of the debate”
Random walk is just a model. If the model was correct, you would observe Gaussian distributions for lognormal prices.
In reality you will not find Gaussian distributions, so by using the terms of Karl Popper, the random walk theory has been falsified and can be refuted.
In particular, random walk theory does not allow for fat tails. Their existence is the explicit proof that you can make money as a technical trader.
According to Karl Popper's falsiability assumption "... a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable...", therefore by asserting it is false you consider the Random walk a scientific theory
Let us say that the falsification is one of the conditions required for a scientific theory. But the reverse is not true, or would you consider anything that can be proven false to be a scientific theory?
But yes, the random walk concept - which is based on market efficiency - is a useful scientific theory. However, when the market behaves in line with its predictions, it is not easily tradeable.
The falsification of this theory was achieved by Benoit Mandelbrot, best shown in his book
The (mis)Behaviour of Markets - A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward
Worth reading. His work has been continued by a number of econo-physicists.
Today is a good example why knowing where are important levels or even mathematical levels like daily pivots or natural levels like yesterday high, RTH High/Low etc. play a minor role in winning the game. The name of the game is patience (persevering in the face of delay) to wait for the easy to identify moves.
