Painted Pony Pete Ltd PDPYF

RE:RE:RE:calling on justlikethat

[justlikethat]

Fergus2,

I have been a lurker on this board going back to at least 2012. There's just a handful of people that bring information for consideration to the table. You are one of them, so won't consider your questions as "crudity."

That said (in your second paragraph), yes that does exists. At the same time, it doesn't negate the science. Technical analysis doesn't work 100% of the time, nor does it not work 100% of the time. It does work on average. If there is enough people following the same methodology, then the reaction will be the same generally speaking. Can one create some sort of algorithm that takes advantage of this? Yes. But so can others, which again leads to repetitive patters. I find that history can give you a glimpse of what works and what doesn't when you back test strategies which smooths out market responses. It gives me, for example, a mental probability of what works and what doesn't. Again, I never am so confident that I can say with 100% probability the something will happen. Nobody can. My goal is just to increase the probability of success and reduce it for failure. I have failed and succeeded but on average have succeeded.

Regarding naked shorting, that has always been a problem. This problem usually results in extremes. Regardless of how we got here, we are close if not at an extreme.