On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:11 PM Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I am becoming convinced that you have not read the paper at all (since I can't find any part of the paper that matches what you suggest here, and since the central thrust of the paper relied on no such idea, and since the only use of the word "beat" in the paper was a sentence talking about two horses). Perhaps you are thinking of a different paper? > "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." As is usual for papers on the subject of P vs. NP, it's contingent on other results. The title pretty much sums up the argument. But, it's also not proposing "a trading strategy which beats the market". That said, from this perspective, even weak form market efficiency seems highly implausible (and, at best, unproven). Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
