Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Every trader alive uses a moving average. Almost none of them know it's a filter, and funds pay quants $600K for the version they were never taught." a moving average is a filter. it smooths a jumpy price to reveal the slower signal hiding underneath....

Rossst_03's profile picture

Rossst.03

3,144 subscribers

214,907 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieFinanzen
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.
29:44

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Rossst.03

269,381 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

Persi Diaconis, Stanford mathematician and former professional magician: "I've spent my life on two tricks: making a rigged deck look random, and making a random one look rigged. The market is the first trick, and almost nobody catches it." this free lecture asks one question, does anything happen at random, and the answer is: far less than you think. and the man asking isn't a trader. he's a stanford professor and former professional magician who spent his life proving how badly humans read randomness. the market is his first trick in the wild. it looks like pure chance, yet buried inside is a faint rig, a 50.75% tilt no eye can see. your gut reads a losing week as a broken system and a hot streak as skill, and it's wrong both times. the tilt is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why funds hand the decision to the math. none of it is hidden. diaconis has taught it for decades, the probability goes back to 1713, and the lecture is free. same point the thread makes: the 50.75% is real, but it lives inside noise your gut will always misread. here is the trap. you feel every win and every loss, but you cannot feel the average, and the average is the only thing that pays. it takes thousands of trades for a 51% edge to separate from luck, and almost everyone quits long before then. the math is free. the patience to trust it past your own eyes is the edge.
1:23:57

Persi Diaconis, Stanford mathematician and former professional magician: "I've spent my life on two tricks: making a rigged deck look random, and making a random one look rigged. The market is the first trick, and almost nobody catches it." this free lecture asks one question, does anything happen at random, and the answer is: far less than you think. and the man asking isn't a trader. he's a stanford professor and former professional magician who spent his life proving how badly humans read randomness. the market is his first trick in the wild. it looks like pure chance, yet buried inside is a faint rig, a 50.75% tilt no eye can see. your gut reads a losing week as a broken system and a hot streak as skill, and it's wrong both times. the tilt is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why funds hand the decision to the math. none of it is hidden. diaconis has taught it for decades, the probability goes back to 1713, and the lecture is free. same point the thread makes: the 50.75% is real, but it lives inside noise your gut will always misread. here is the trap. you feel every win and every loss, but you cannot feel the average, and the average is the only thing that pays. it takes thousands of trades for a 51% edge to separate from luck, and almost everyone quits long before then. the math is free. the patience to trust it past your own eyes is the edge.

Rossst.03

216,635 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Hedge funds pay $500K a year for one skill: telling a real pattern from noise. I've spent my life on it, and most people get it exactly backwards." this free lecture holds the entire "find the signal" problem those firms pay for, given at UCLA by the most decorated mathematician alive and posted for nothing. at the board it's simple. Tao's lifelong theme is that almost nothing is purely one thing. There is perfect structure, like a clock, and perfect randomness, like a coin, and essentially everything real is a mixture of the two. The work is separating them. The primes are the perfect test case: they look scattered and lawless, and yet Tao and Ben Green proved they contain arbitrarily long evenly spaced runs. Order was hiding inside apparent chaos the whole time. That's the whole "signal detection", minus the marketing. He gave this lecture at UCLA and it has been free ever since. Same point as my article above: the mathematics those firms pay half a million dollars for is public, documented and free to anyone tonight. the lecture is free and anyone can watch it. what nobody can sell you is the judgment to know when a pattern is real and when your own eyes invented it. That judgment is the entire job, and it takes years to build.
45:02

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Hedge funds pay $500K a year for one skill: telling a real pattern from noise. I've spent my life on it, and most people get it exactly backwards." this free lecture holds the entire "find the signal" problem those firms pay for, given at UCLA by the most decorated mathematician alive and posted for nothing. at the board it's simple. Tao's lifelong theme is that almost nothing is purely one thing. There is perfect structure, like a clock, and perfect randomness, like a coin, and essentially everything real is a mixture of the two. The work is separating them. The primes are the perfect test case: they look scattered and lawless, and yet Tao and Ben Green proved they contain arbitrarily long evenly spaced runs. Order was hiding inside apparent chaos the whole time. That's the whole "signal detection", minus the marketing. He gave this lecture at UCLA and it has been free ever since. Same point as my article above: the mathematics those firms pay half a million dollars for is public, documented and free to anyone tonight. the lecture is free and anyone can watch it. what nobody can sell you is the judgment to know when a pattern is real and when your own eyes invented it. That judgment is the entire job, and it takes years to build.

Rossst.03

219,060 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

Moving averages are not support. They are math. Scot1and, a trader and educator who builds his entire framework around price and auction activity, breaks down why this distinction is critical. A moving average has no participants behind it. A price congestion zone does — real volume, real transactions, real memory baked into the chart. When those two things coincide and the moving average holds, traders credit the indicator when they should credit the zone. When they diverge, traders get hurt holding a level that was never real to begin with. Real support is where the market has already done business. That is the only line worth watching.
2:32

Moving averages are not support. They are math. Scot1and, a trader and educator who builds his entire framework around price and auction activity, breaks down why this distinction is critical. A moving average has no participants behind it. A price congestion zone does — real volume, real transactions, real memory baked into the chart. When those two things coincide and the moving average holds, traders credit the indicator when they should credit the zone. When they diverge, traders get hurt holding a level that was never real to begin with. Real support is where the market has already done business. That is the only line worth watching.

TraderLion

14,544 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A Stanford mathematician who spent 10 years as a professional magician just described the market in one sentence: "I've spent my life on two tricks: making a rigged deck look random, and making a random one look rigged. The market is the first trick, and almost nobody catches it." That's Persi Diaconis. He has a free lecture that asks one question: does anything actually happen at random? The answer is: far less than you think. The market is his first trick in the wild. It looks like pure chance. Buried inside is a faint rig, a 50.75% tilt no eye can see. Your gut reads a losing week as a broken system and a hot streak as skill. Wrong both times. The tilt is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why funds hand the decision to the math. None of it is hidden. Diaconis has taught it for decades. The probability goes back to 1713. The lecture is free. Here's the trap: you feel every win and every loss, but you cannot feel the average. And the average is the only thing that pays. It takes thousands of trades for a 51% edge to separate from luck, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free. The patience to trust it past your own eyes is the edge.
1:23:57

A Stanford mathematician who spent 10 years as a professional magician just described the market in one sentence: "I've spent my life on two tricks: making a rigged deck look random, and making a random one look rigged. The market is the first trick, and almost nobody catches it." That's Persi Diaconis. He has a free lecture that asks one question: does anything actually happen at random? The answer is: far less than you think. The market is his first trick in the wild. It looks like pure chance. Buried inside is a faint rig, a 50.75% tilt no eye can see. Your gut reads a losing week as a broken system and a hot streak as skill. Wrong both times. The tilt is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why funds hand the decision to the math. None of it is hidden. Diaconis has taught it for decades. The probability goes back to 1713. The lecture is free. Here's the trap: you feel every win and every loss, but you cannot feel the average. And the average is the only thing that pays. It takes thousands of trades for a 51% edge to separate from luck, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free. The patience to trust it past your own eyes is the edge.

veles

2,165,941 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

The best signal is sometimes NO signal. That is why I do not trade when Intelligent Balance shows less than 60%. Below 60% means one thing to me: NO CLEAR EDGE. And that is exactly where most traders destroy their account. They see a sweep. They see an iFVG. They see CISD. They convince themselves there is a trade. But without a strong more probable side, the setup has no real filter. For me: 60%+ = I have a side to focus on. Below 60% = I protect capital. Simple. Intelligent Balance is not only there to tell me where to trade. It is there to tell me when NOT to trade. Because forcing trades in a low-edge environment is not trading. It is gambling with extra steps. Would you skip a session if the indicator told you there is no clear edge?
0:41

The best signal is sometimes NO signal. That is why I do not trade when Intelligent Balance shows less than 60%. Below 60% means one thing to me: NO CLEAR EDGE. And that is exactly where most traders destroy their account. They see a sweep. They see an iFVG. They see CISD. They convince themselves there is a trade. But without a strong more probable side, the setup has no real filter. For me: 60%+ = I have a side to focus on. Below 60% = I protect capital. Simple. Intelligent Balance is not only there to tell me where to trade. It is there to tell me when NOT to trade. Because forcing trades in a low-edge environment is not trading. It is gambling with extra steps. Would you skip a session if the indicator told you there is no clear edge?

Herman Trading

18,993 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Funds pay $750K to combine weak signals into one real edge. I proved the thing that makes it work and makes it dangerous: in any long enough sequence, hidden structure is unavoidable. it always accumulates. the whole job is telling the real structure from the noise that only looks like it." this free lecture is the most decorated mathematician alive on the exact problem sitting underneath every factor model, and it costs nothing. at the board it's simple. Tao's lifelong theme is the line between structure and randomness. The Erdős discrepancy problem asks a deceptively simple thing: can you write an endless string of plus-ones and minus-ones that stays perfectly balanced forever? Tao proved you cannot. No matter how cleverly you try, imbalance, hidden structure, is forced to accumulate as the sequence grows. There is no such thing as a long stream of pure, structureless noise. That's the whole idea, minus the jargon. Which is exactly why a multi-factor model can work, and exactly why it can kill you. Stack enough weak signals and real structure will appear, because at scale structure is unavoidable. But so will fake structure, patterns that exist only because the data is long enough to force them. Same point as the post above: finding structure is guaranteed. Knowing which structure is an edge is the rare and expensive part. the mathematics is free and public. what nobody can sell you is the judgment to tell the structure the market will pay you for from the structure that exists only because you looked hard enough. That judgment is the alpha, and it takes years to build.
51:34

Terence Tao, UCLA professor and the most decorated mathematician alive: "Funds pay $750K to combine weak signals into one real edge. I proved the thing that makes it work and makes it dangerous: in any long enough sequence, hidden structure is unavoidable. it always accumulates. the whole job is telling the real structure from the noise that only looks like it." this free lecture is the most decorated mathematician alive on the exact problem sitting underneath every factor model, and it costs nothing. at the board it's simple. Tao's lifelong theme is the line between structure and randomness. The Erdős discrepancy problem asks a deceptively simple thing: can you write an endless string of plus-ones and minus-ones that stays perfectly balanced forever? Tao proved you cannot. No matter how cleverly you try, imbalance, hidden structure, is forced to accumulate as the sequence grows. There is no such thing as a long stream of pure, structureless noise. That's the whole idea, minus the jargon. Which is exactly why a multi-factor model can work, and exactly why it can kill you. Stack enough weak signals and real structure will appear, because at scale structure is unavoidable. But so will fake structure, patterns that exist only because the data is long enough to force them. Same point as the post above: finding structure is guaranteed. Knowing which structure is an edge is the rare and expensive part. the mathematics is free and public. what nobody can sell you is the judgment to tell the structure the market will pay you for from the structure that exists only because you looked hard enough. That judgment is the alpha, and it takes years to build.

Rossst.03

210,907 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

Is it worth it? That next level you’re chasing — the one that separates the average from the elite — doesn’t come without a price. The real question is: What are you willing to do to get there?
0:43

Is it worth it? That next level you’re chasing — the one that separates the average from the elite — doesn’t come without a price. The real question is: What are you willing to do to get there?

Chris Pronger

69,081 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Persi Diaconis, Stanford mathematician and former professional magician: "I spent fifty years proving one thing: almost nothing is as random as it looks. The 50.75% that built Renaissance wasn't luck. It was a tiny crack in the randomness, found and repeated a million times." this free lecture holds the exact idea the thread above is built on. and the man giving it isn't a trader. he's a stanford professor and former professional magician who spent his career on one question: where does real randomness end, and where does a hidden edge begin. here is his life's finding. a coin, a shuffle, a market, all look random, yet each hides a faint, measurable bias. on its own that bias is nothing, indistinguishable from luck. repeat it enough times and it stops being luck and becomes a law. that faint crack, found and repeated, is the whole distance between a 50.75% win rate and a hundred billion dollars. none of this is new or hidden. diaconis has taught it for decades, the math runs back to 1713, and the lecture is free. i mapped the full system in my article, expected value, kelly, and this. same point the thread makes: the edge was sitting in plain sight. here is the part the gurus skip. a faint edge only pays if you survive long enough to reach it, and that takes correct sizing and the patience to trust it through thousands of losing-looking trades. most quit while it still looks like randomness. the math is free. the nerve to hold it is the edge.
48:41

Persi Diaconis, Stanford mathematician and former professional magician: "I spent fifty years proving one thing: almost nothing is as random as it looks. The 50.75% that built Renaissance wasn't luck. It was a tiny crack in the randomness, found and repeated a million times." this free lecture holds the exact idea the thread above is built on. and the man giving it isn't a trader. he's a stanford professor and former professional magician who spent his career on one question: where does real randomness end, and where does a hidden edge begin. here is his life's finding. a coin, a shuffle, a market, all look random, yet each hides a faint, measurable bias. on its own that bias is nothing, indistinguishable from luck. repeat it enough times and it stops being luck and becomes a law. that faint crack, found and repeated, is the whole distance between a 50.75% win rate and a hundred billion dollars. none of this is new or hidden. diaconis has taught it for decades, the math runs back to 1713, and the lecture is free. i mapped the full system in my article, expected value, kelly, and this. same point the thread makes: the edge was sitting in plain sight. here is the part the gurus skip. a faint edge only pays if you survive long enough to reach it, and that takes correct sizing and the patience to trust it through thousands of losing-looking trades. most quit while it still looks like randomness. the math is free. the nerve to hold it is the edge.

Rossst.03

229,785 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

David MacKay, Cambridge professor: "Citadel and Jane Street pay $900K for people who get one idea I taught free at Cambridge: information is measurable, and whoever measures it best wins. the casino knew it first. the machines know it now." this free lecture holds the entire "secret alpha" the funds and the AI gurus sell, and the man teaching it put his whole course and his whole book online for free and never locked a single page. at the board it's simple. information is just how much a signal cuts your uncertainty, and you can measure it in exact bits. the more an edge shrinks what you don't know, the more it is worth, and Shannon proved there is a hard ceiling on how fast you can compound it into money. that is the whole "edge", and the whole "AI magic", minus the marketing. MacKay taught it at Cambridge and gave the book away free in 2003. it has been free ever since. same point as the casino piece above: the house wins with a small, measurable edge, repeated and sized right, not with a secret. the theory is free and every fund and every model already runs on it. what they cannot sell you is the data to feed the machine and the discipline to size the bet. that is the part that actually compounds, and no course can put it in a formula.
1:00:58

David MacKay, Cambridge professor: "Citadel and Jane Street pay $900K for people who get one idea I taught free at Cambridge: information is measurable, and whoever measures it best wins. the casino knew it first. the machines know it now." this free lecture holds the entire "secret alpha" the funds and the AI gurus sell, and the man teaching it put his whole course and his whole book online for free and never locked a single page. at the board it's simple. information is just how much a signal cuts your uncertainty, and you can measure it in exact bits. the more an edge shrinks what you don't know, the more it is worth, and Shannon proved there is a hard ceiling on how fast you can compound it into money. that is the whole "edge", and the whole "AI magic", minus the marketing. MacKay taught it at Cambridge and gave the book away free in 2003. it has been free ever since. same point as the casino piece above: the house wins with a small, measurable edge, repeated and sized right, not with a secret. the theory is free and every fund and every model already runs on it. what they cannot sell you is the data to feed the machine and the discipline to size the bet. that is the part that actually compounds, and no course can put it in a formula.

Rossst.03

24,699 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

Message from #LAKA ~ There Is Always A Payoff "In The Moment of Your Actions, There Is Something Moving Unconsciously As Well. The Choice Is Creating An Outcome. This Is A Payoff And Nothing Is Ever Done Without It." "The Real Payoff To Be Desired Is A Feeling Of Accomplishment And Creativity. Everyone Has The Chance To Be Fulfilled From The Expression Of The Soul." "Become Honest With The Reasons You Choose Aspects Of All Endeavors Before You. There Is Always A Payoff And The Real Moment Of Growth And Expansion Is To Know If Choices Are Assisting The Soul Or The Ego."
3:22

Message from #LAKA ~ There Is Always A Payoff "In The Moment of Your Actions, There Is Something Moving Unconsciously As Well. The Choice Is Creating An Outcome. This Is A Payoff And Nothing Is Ever Done Without It." "The Real Payoff To Be Desired Is A Feeling Of Accomplishment And Creativity. Everyone Has The Chance To Be Fulfilled From The Expression Of The Soul." "Become Honest With The Reasons You Choose Aspects Of All Endeavors Before You. There Is Always A Payoff And The Real Moment Of Growth And Expansion Is To Know If Choices Are Assisting The Soul Or The Ego."

Kab

67,382 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist: "You can know the name of every pattern in the market and understand nothing about why a single one works. I won a Nobel on that one distinction. it is the whole difference between an edge and a story you tell yourself." this free film is a Nobel laureate teaching you how to actually think, recorded by the BBC and free ever since. at the board it's simple. Feynman's obsession was the gap between naming a thing and understanding it. You can memorize the word for why a stock moved, "momentum", "mean reversion", and still know nothing about whether it will happen again. Real understanding means you can say why, from the mechanism up, and name what would break it. Everything else is a label pasted over ignorance. That's the whole "edge", minus the marketing. Feynman's rule was that the first principle is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Same point as my casino piece above: the market is a machine for handing you convincing stories, and the only defense is refusing to believe one you cannot explain. the film is free and anyone can watch it tonight. what nobody can give you is the discipline to admit "I named it but I don't understand it" before you put money on it. That honesty is the edge, and it is the rarest thing there is.
1:06:19

Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist: "You can know the name of every pattern in the market and understand nothing about why a single one works. I won a Nobel on that one distinction. it is the whole difference between an edge and a story you tell yourself." this free film is a Nobel laureate teaching you how to actually think, recorded by the BBC and free ever since. at the board it's simple. Feynman's obsession was the gap between naming a thing and understanding it. You can memorize the word for why a stock moved, "momentum", "mean reversion", and still know nothing about whether it will happen again. Real understanding means you can say why, from the mechanism up, and name what would break it. Everything else is a label pasted over ignorance. That's the whole "edge", minus the marketing. Feynman's rule was that the first principle is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Same point as my casino piece above: the market is a machine for handing you convincing stories, and the only defense is refusing to believe one you cannot explain. the film is free and anyone can watch it tonight. what nobody can give you is the discipline to admit "I named it but I don't understand it" before you put money on it. That honesty is the edge, and it is the rarest thing there is.

Rossst.03

19,337 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of AI: "The best trader on Wall Street is no longer human. I spent fifty years proving the mind is just a machine built from smaller machines, and once that's true, nothing stops a machine from being the house. it already is." this free lecture holds the entire "AI edge" the funds and the gurus sell, and the man teaching it founded the field itself and put his whole MIT course online for free. at the board it's simple. Minsky's idea is that there is no magic in thinking. a mind is a huge pile of small, mindless parts, each doing something simple, and intelligence is just what happens when enough of them work together. a trading machine is the same trick: thousands of simple rules stacked until an edge appears. that's the whole "AI", minus the mystery. Minsky taught this at MIT and published "The Society of Mind" in 1986. the course has been free ever since. same point as my casino piece above: the house wins with many small mindless advantages stacked, not with one born genius. the ideas are free and every AI lab and every fund already has them. what they cannot sell you is the data and the compute to actually build the machine. that is the real moat now, and no lecture can hand it to you.
1:56:06

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of AI: "The best trader on Wall Street is no longer human. I spent fifty years proving the mind is just a machine built from smaller machines, and once that's true, nothing stops a machine from being the house. it already is." this free lecture holds the entire "AI edge" the funds and the gurus sell, and the man teaching it founded the field itself and put his whole MIT course online for free. at the board it's simple. Minsky's idea is that there is no magic in thinking. a mind is a huge pile of small, mindless parts, each doing something simple, and intelligence is just what happens when enough of them work together. a trading machine is the same trick: thousands of simple rules stacked until an edge appears. that's the whole "AI", minus the mystery. Minsky taught this at MIT and published "The Society of Mind" in 1986. the course has been free ever since. same point as my casino piece above: the house wins with many small mindless advantages stacked, not with one born genius. the ideas are free and every AI lab and every fund already has them. what they cannot sell you is the data and the compute to actually build the machine. that is the real moat now, and no lecture can hand it to you.

Voltex

27,976 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

PROUD TO LAUNCH FUTURUM SIGNAL Our first report on Intelligent Data Platforms -- covering $GOOGL, $AMZN, $ORCL, $IBM, $CRM, $SNOW, Databricks and more -- is just the start. In August & September, seven more evaluations will follow, cutting past hype all the noise to actually providing a signal. This will be a living system that evolves with the tech itself -- something nobody else is building at this depth. The S-curve of growth in AI and data is underway, and Futurum Signal is the lens to track it in real time.
1:16

PROUD TO LAUNCH FUTURUM SIGNAL Our first report on Intelligent Data Platforms -- covering $GOOGL, $AMZN, $ORCL, $IBM, $CRM, $SNOW, Databricks and more -- is just the start. In August & September, seven more evaluations will follow, cutting past hype all the noise to actually providing a signal. This will be a living system that evolves with the tech itself -- something nobody else is building at this depth. The S-curve of growth in AI and data is underway, and Futurum Signal is the lens to track it in real time.

Daniel Newman

23,906 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

This is what it means to be on the charts for 20 years. For a trader, experience is not a detail, it is the real key to success. We are not talking about indicators, magic setups or current trends, but about eye, market memory and the ability to recognise the same dynamics that repeat themselves in different forms. This video found online explains it perfectly: it makes you understand how, over time, you stop reacting to candlesticks and start reading the market's intentions. You know when there is noise, when there is distribution, when they are just looking for liquidity... and above all, you know when to do nothing. That's where the real advantage lies. The rest is just haste, ego and overtrading. Experience does not accelerate the market. It accelerates you.
0:42

This is what it means to be on the charts for 20 years. For a trader, experience is not a detail, it is the real key to success. We are not talking about indicators, magic setups or current trends, but about eye, market memory and the ability to recognise the same dynamics that repeat themselves in different forms. This video found online explains it perfectly: it makes you understand how, over time, you stop reacting to candlesticks and start reading the market's intentions. You know when there is noise, when there is distribution, when they are just looking for liquidity... and above all, you know when to do nothing. That's where the real advantage lies. The rest is just haste, ego and overtrading. Experience does not accelerate the market. It accelerates you.

EliZ

61,654 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Our mainstream culture is conflict-avoidant. There is the assumption that the less conflict there is in a relationship, the better it is. I disagree. If there is real intimacy, conflict is actually unavoidable. Because we are all different. The real indicator of health in a relationship isn’t the lack of conflict, it is the quality of our repair. It is the level of authenticity we can bring. That requires knowing how to be with conflict and disagreement, how to hold nuance. And it also requires practicing the art of repairing. Are we willing to show up and repair what we broke? Do we have the skills and capacity required for that? Avoiding conflict means avoiding truth and therefore avoiding real intimacy. This work is essential and transcends the personal. If we aren't capable of dealing with conflict in our own personal lives, it is no wonder that the world is in the state it is, where the most prevalent conflict management strategy is escalation.
0:59

Our mainstream culture is conflict-avoidant. There is the assumption that the less conflict there is in a relationship, the better it is. I disagree. If there is real intimacy, conflict is actually unavoidable. Because we are all different. The real indicator of health in a relationship isn’t the lack of conflict, it is the quality of our repair. It is the level of authenticity we can bring. That requires knowing how to be with conflict and disagreement, how to hold nuance. And it also requires practicing the art of repairing. Are we willing to show up and repair what we broke? Do we have the skills and capacity required for that? Avoiding conflict means avoiding truth and therefore avoiding real intimacy. This work is essential and transcends the personal. If we aren't capable of dealing with conflict in our own personal lives, it is no wonder that the world is in the state it is, where the most prevalent conflict management strategy is escalation.

Laura Cincera

10,933 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Marvin Minsky, the MIT scientist who founded AI: "Citadel pays PhDs $500K to find the perfect equation. The market doesn't have one. It's beaten by a swarm of dumb agents, the exact design Marvin Minsky said your brain runs on." the thread above is about swarm intelligence, letting a crowd of simple agents search the ugly, shifting landscape of a market that no clean equation can solve. minsky's entire life's work says that isn't a hack. it is how intelligence itself is built. he proved you don't need a smart central solver. you need many mindless specialists, each doing one tiny job, none understanding the whole. connect enough of them and something intelligent emerges from parts that are individually dumb. a market is exactly that: millions of simple agents, no one in charge, collectively solving a problem none of them can see. that is why the swarm beats the elegant math. a single closed-form equation assumes a clean, stable world. the market is nonlinear, non-stationary, full of traps. a swarm doesn't need to understand the landscape, it explores it from a thousand angles at once and can't get permanently stuck where one clever model would. minsky saw this in the mind decades before quants borrowed it for markets. he taught it at MIT, for free, in this lecture. same story i keep telling: the "new" AI idea running the funds is an old idea in a new wrapper. here is what the thread underplays, and minsky knew it. a swarm is only as good as how its agents are wired and rewarded. connect them wrong and a thousand dumb agents don't become a genius, they become expensive noise that overfits and blows up. the swarm is free. the architecture, knowing how to connect and constrain the agents, is the entire edge.
1:46:41

Marvin Minsky, the MIT scientist who founded AI: "Citadel pays PhDs $500K to find the perfect equation. The market doesn't have one. It's beaten by a swarm of dumb agents, the exact design Marvin Minsky said your brain runs on." the thread above is about swarm intelligence, letting a crowd of simple agents search the ugly, shifting landscape of a market that no clean equation can solve. minsky's entire life's work says that isn't a hack. it is how intelligence itself is built. he proved you don't need a smart central solver. you need many mindless specialists, each doing one tiny job, none understanding the whole. connect enough of them and something intelligent emerges from parts that are individually dumb. a market is exactly that: millions of simple agents, no one in charge, collectively solving a problem none of them can see. that is why the swarm beats the elegant math. a single closed-form equation assumes a clean, stable world. the market is nonlinear, non-stationary, full of traps. a swarm doesn't need to understand the landscape, it explores it from a thousand angles at once and can't get permanently stuck where one clever model would. minsky saw this in the mind decades before quants borrowed it for markets. he taught it at MIT, for free, in this lecture. same story i keep telling: the "new" AI idea running the funds is an old idea in a new wrapper. here is what the thread underplays, and minsky knew it. a swarm is only as good as how its agents are wired and rewarded. connect them wrong and a thousand dumb agents don't become a genius, they become expensive noise that overfits and blows up. the swarm is free. the architecture, knowing how to connect and constrain the agents, is the entire edge.

Rossst.03

45,129 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

In 1963, Benoit Mandelbrot showed that cotton prices don't follow a bell curve. He showed it again with wheat, interest rates, stocks, and indices. Wall Street thanked him, gave him a medal, and kept using the bell curve. Every fund blowup since has been the invoice. Mandelbrot wasn't a Wall Street insider. He was a mathematician at IBM, an outsider the economics establishment spent 40 years trying to bury. Most of his career, mainstream finance journals wouldn't touch him. He was right anyway. The graveyard of blown-up funds keeps proving it. The thread above sells you a better filter. Mandelbrot spent his life on the assumption underneath every filter, the one every filter salesman needs you not to question. The assumption is that price moves cluster near the average and big moves are almost impossible. Every Sharpe ratio, every VaR, every risk model in every fund quietly runs on it. Mandelbrot proved for four decades, in papers Wall Street chose not to read, that real markets have fat tails, wild variance, and rough repeating patterns at every scale. The 10-sigma move isn't once in a hundred lifetimes. In markets, it shows up on a Tuesday. The self-similarity part is the tell. Take a crypto chart and cover the axis labels. You cannot tell if you're looking at a one-minute or a one-year timeframe. The roughness looks the same because the underlying process is the same. It does not average out at longer horizons. It just repeats. This is why every model that promises the tail is 1-in-10,000 blows up on schedule. LTCM died in 1998 and the industry called it once-a-millennium. 2008 repeated it a decade later. Crypto compresses the same lesson into weeks. 3AC, Luna, FTX, every leveraged desk that went to zero on a weekend was running on the bell curve Mandelbrot buried in 1963. The takeaway isn't that filters are useless. It's that no filter tells you how much to bet when it's right. Sizing is what survives the tail. The filter tells you where to look. Sizing decides whether you're still alive to look tomorrow. Build the filter. Build the swarm. Build the sharpest model of your generation. Just remember they're all fitting a world that doesn't exist, and the part that survives the tail, that part, you still have to bring yourself. His TED talk is from 2010. It's free. It was free in 1963 too.
16:46

In 1963, Benoit Mandelbrot showed that cotton prices don't follow a bell curve. He showed it again with wheat, interest rates, stocks, and indices. Wall Street thanked him, gave him a medal, and kept using the bell curve. Every fund blowup since has been the invoice. Mandelbrot wasn't a Wall Street insider. He was a mathematician at IBM, an outsider the economics establishment spent 40 years trying to bury. Most of his career, mainstream finance journals wouldn't touch him. He was right anyway. The graveyard of blown-up funds keeps proving it. The thread above sells you a better filter. Mandelbrot spent his life on the assumption underneath every filter, the one every filter salesman needs you not to question. The assumption is that price moves cluster near the average and big moves are almost impossible. Every Sharpe ratio, every VaR, every risk model in every fund quietly runs on it. Mandelbrot proved for four decades, in papers Wall Street chose not to read, that real markets have fat tails, wild variance, and rough repeating patterns at every scale. The 10-sigma move isn't once in a hundred lifetimes. In markets, it shows up on a Tuesday. The self-similarity part is the tell. Take a crypto chart and cover the axis labels. You cannot tell if you're looking at a one-minute or a one-year timeframe. The roughness looks the same because the underlying process is the same. It does not average out at longer horizons. It just repeats. This is why every model that promises the tail is 1-in-10,000 blows up on schedule. LTCM died in 1998 and the industry called it once-a-millennium. 2008 repeated it a decade later. Crypto compresses the same lesson into weeks. 3AC, Luna, FTX, every leveraged desk that went to zero on a weekend was running on the bell curve Mandelbrot buried in 1963. The takeaway isn't that filters are useless. It's that no filter tells you how much to bet when it's right. Sizing is what survives the tail. The filter tells you where to look. Sizing decides whether you're still alive to look tomorrow. Build the filter. Build the swarm. Build the sharpest model of your generation. Just remember they're all fitting a world that doesn't exist, and the part that survives the tail, that part, you still have to bring yourself. His TED talk is from 2010. It's free. It was free in 1963 too.

veles

44,363 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

It's a sign of force and anger. It's kind of a threat. "Do what I want or else." Hand signal communication is mostly forgotten, but it seems to be embedded deep in either the psyche or in the culture. [CHEST REVEAL (I already did this on YouTube but it was an old photo. I will be in better shape soon.)] This "beak" hand signal is the opposite of what trump does. His hands are often open and pointed at his listeners, indicating "I see you and hear you. I am considering your needs." The girl's closed, pointed hands indicate finality. "This is the way things are, and you'd better agree." The Italian "chef's kiss" hand signal is the same, but pointed at yourself. "Here is what I say, and I am sure." That hand signal is also used in arguments. People shake it at themselves to say "my word is final." When it's pointed at YOU, it means "you better accept my word as final, or else." IMO, the proliferation of the "beak" hand communication from low-value or otherwise suffering women is a signal of desperation that is likely to spread as society continues to crumble.
1:38

It's a sign of force and anger. It's kind of a threat. "Do what I want or else." Hand signal communication is mostly forgotten, but it seems to be embedded deep in either the psyche or in the culture. [CHEST REVEAL (I already did this on YouTube but it was an old photo. I will be in better shape soon.)] This "beak" hand signal is the opposite of what trump does. His hands are often open and pointed at his listeners, indicating "I see you and hear you. I am considering your needs." The girl's closed, pointed hands indicate finality. "This is the way things are, and you'd better agree." The Italian "chef's kiss" hand signal is the same, but pointed at yourself. "Here is what I say, and I am sure." That hand signal is also used in arguments. People shake it at themselves to say "my word is final." When it's pointed at YOU, it means "you better accept my word as final, or else." IMO, the proliferation of the "beak" hand communication from low-value or otherwise suffering women is a signal of desperation that is likely to spread as society continues to crumble.

hoe_math

83,163 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The best trades don't make you sweat. That's not a feeling — it's a signal. Lance, a professional trend-following trader, makes the case that serious drawdown is diagnostic information, not bad luck. When a trade bleeds and doesn't recover quickly, it almost always means the position is structured against the dominant trend. The market delivers that verdict fast. Waiting it out rarely changes the answer. If the trade is giving heat, it's already telling you what you need to know.
3:01

The best trades don't make you sweat. That's not a feeling — it's a signal. Lance, a professional trend-following trader, makes the case that serious drawdown is diagnostic information, not bad luck. When a trade bleeds and doesn't recover quickly, it almost always means the position is structured against the dominant trend. The market delivers that verdict fast. Waiting it out rarely changes the answer. If the trade is giving heat, it's already telling you what you need to know.

TraderLion

12,261 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten