Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 02:56:03 PM

Quote from: creekbore on April 03, 2014, 08:45:42 AM

Quote from: aminorex on April 03, 2014, 04:49:09 AM

I like my TA with a dose of empiricism or at least plausible structural theory. The *only* justification for treating the cross-over on bitcoinwisdom as a signal, as opposed to any other pair of moving averages, is the mere fact that it is the default on the 1 week chart on bitcoinwisdom. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a rational basis for a trading strategy. We should ask the proprietor to randomly perturb the default periods on the moving averages.

What should we set the EMA to?
Sunny?
Optimistic?

I suggested randomization precisely to avoid goal-seeking.

Quote

How can it be unempirical. It is two settings to judge a period.
Fine, change the settings until it draws a story that fits your point of view. Highly scientific.

Exactly what I seek to avoid. Fixed crossings are fine if you understand the limitations and are able to consistently maintain a suitable time-scale for all trading activity. Whether you would be profitable in a fixed EMA trading strategy in this particular instance, I cannot say, but it seems likely. One can easily calibrate that likelihood empirically. The scale of the opportunity costs implied by a strategy sufficiently disciplined to optimize that particular trade is quite vast, however. The trading public will be bimodally distributed: A small cohort will benefit more by paying relatively little heed to that weekly signal, without disregarding it; a much larger cohort will not be able to exercise the discipline to profit by it; the residual population is relatively smaller.

Quote

Quote

It's sad because people will trade on such a pathetic excuse for a rationalization, thinking it is driven by some deep and compelling model, when in fact they are just hanging their emotions on a scary picture. It's sad because most of them will lose bitcoin as a result (perhaps not as a result of selling at that specific time, but almost certainly as a result of selling low and buying high), contributing to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few skilled but, in all too many cases, sociopathic persons.

Yes, it's really sad that people use the tools at their disposable to inform their decision making.

It is a blunt tool, and ineptly used. Hence my sadness. Sharp tools, aptly used generally cheer me up.

Quote

Pretty much every indicator that shows we are having a bad time you dismiss --- each that predicts optimism you embrace: this seems highly unscientific.

But hey, I need strong medication Wink

I don't dismiss the relationship between ATH and the market - after all, it is only lows which create long opportunities. I see little advantage in moaning about it. Indeed, I have mostly foresworn shorting, not because it is unprofitable -- anything but! Rather, because I cannot bear to profit from the criminal acts of my enemies. I may still short a strong market, but only if there is no DDOS or other, more directly observable, massive embezzlement in progress. Sadly this means that most of my historical short gains will no longer be available, and any future shorts will be taken at much higher risk. If the market is sufficiently mature, I may short the next bear from top to bottom, because then it would not correlate with the designs of criminal actors, or contribute materially to their enrichment.

Trading gets more complicated when you stop ignoring the moral elements.

Just to follow up on that last remark first: I'm not sure I follow your syntax there -- I would say trading is more complicated when you acknowledge moral elements.

But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties). It seems far too familiar to gambling as some poor sap recently commented on another thread.

Back to tools. I have a number of cold chisels in my (real) tool box, they are quite blunt but are perfect for the jobs they are suited to. Indeed, as many of my tools are blunt as ones that are sharp. You may be inept with a blunt tool but that doesn't mean everyone is.

If we were to randomize our EMA settings how would we find a grouping to settle on or make a consistent judgement over time?

AS I said in my previous post Risto has stated he's a big fan of the 4hour EMA....so a fine enough a tool to fund a mansion?

So, to summarize thus far you have dismissed the following TA indicators:

Bid/sum ratio
EMA
Blockchain tx numbers and volume (and a couple of other from Blockchain.info I can't recall)
Market cap

Perhaps it'd be quicker if you summarized what is pertinent in your opinion

(other than tx addresses)

+++++++

ADD: to all the lovely users who PM'd me with such warm, charming messages with regard to my mention of burning coal.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf
http://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085