"That's not what it says." Really? Be that as it may, meanwhile you have not shown a single instance of a technical strategy, of the kind entertained in that paper, able to beat the market with a statistically significant level according to a backtest, let alone one which can do so in real-time betting real money. Have you?
"It does suggest that EMH would have implications about the nature of trading. But its central argument is that is the market were efficient that we could expect the market to have problem solving properties which it doesn't have." You are not trying to imply, based on the claims of that paper, that the market is inefficient. Are you? What the paper says is, "To be clear, we are also not trying to determine if P = NP or, for that matter, whether markets are efficient." On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:23 AM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 7:03 PM Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > "So I'm not seeing the problem." > > > > The paper, of which you are fond, implies that there might (or there > might > > not) be at least one mighty ghost technical trading strategy which, in a > > simulation, would have convincingly beaten a given market for a period of > > time in the past, and one would probably never know depending on whether > > P≠NP or not. > > > > > > However, even if a mighty ghost makes a sudden apparition, there is no > > assurance it would be able to beat the particular market (in which it was > > backtested) in real-time betting real money because, for example, a > phantom > > concealed unregulated trading strategy might (or might not) start > operating > > ruining the actual mighty ghost trades. (Once again, "Past performance > is > > not [necessarily] indicative of future results.") Instead of invoking > > ghosts and phantoms I prefer to cite an actual trading record, such as > the > > one from the very smart lady I mentioned, as likely concrete evidence > > against the EMH (in a specific context). > > > That's not what it says. > > It does suggest that EMH would have implications about the nature of > trading. But its central argument is that is the market were efficient that > we could expect the market to have problem solving properties which it > doesn't have. > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
