Maybe the argument is something like financial markets have so much noise that you’re more likely to accidentally overfit to noise rather than find real patterns that let you infer a useful model
That is pretty much my argument, yes.
Emotional trading is such a danger that I also want my trading to be in principle something that I could program into a computer, even if I do, in practice, execute the trades manually. This isn’t compatible with “eyeballing it”.
I do look at price charts. I use Heikin Ashi candles, Bollinger bands, probability cones, moving averages, volatility graphs, and I even eyeball support and resistance levels. But I mostly don’t expect to predict the future with these. It’s more about noticing when my initial assumptions have been violated, by past behavior.
but if that’s the case that’s a problem everywhere, and you just have to get more aggressive about dealing with it
I thought that’s what I was doing. What else would you suggest?
up to some limit where there’s simply not enough signal to determine anything useful.
I think this is the case in some markets. You can still sometimes get enough signal for alphas that affect multiple assets in similar ways, by trading ensembles.
That is pretty much my argument, yes.
Emotional trading is such a danger that I also want my trading to be in principle something that I could program into a computer, even if I do, in practice, execute the trades manually. This isn’t compatible with “eyeballing it”.
I do look at price charts. I use Heikin Ashi candles, Bollinger bands, probability cones, moving averages, volatility graphs, and I even eyeball support and resistance levels. But I mostly don’t expect to predict the future with these. It’s more about noticing when my initial assumptions have been violated, by past behavior.
I thought that’s what I was doing. What else would you suggest?
I think this is the case in some markets. You can still sometimes get enough signal for alphas that affect multiple assets in similar ways, by trading ensembles.