is retired now but still kicking like a horse!
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi Irwin. Is this a multiple Choice Test?
You wrote:
(1) GAMBLING, INSURANCE, and SPECULATION are all similar in that they all involve changing the money one holds based on a random (i.e. chance) event.
Ask Don Carslon in which Category his Cash Burning will fall.
If I buy insurance then the money I change give me a fixed service. Aftevthis there is nothing more changes. If something happens or not the fixed cost of the insurance is meant to keep my asset value the same. Any chance event will not change anything(theoretically). I vote the Insurance as the odd man out!
(2) GAMBLING and SPECULATION are similar to each other and different from INSURANCE in that there is no profit motive in INSURANCE. There is an existing risk and INSURANCE is used to mitigate the adverse financial effects of the risk. In fact to try to use INSURANCE for profit (e.g. intentionally burning down an insured house) is illegal. (By the way ... what is the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" ... answer ... one is against the law and the other is a sick bird ;=)
About the insurance, that's what I thought I said. About the other thing, I am very sure you are mistaken. It is the other way: one is a sick bird and the other is against the law.
(3) SPECULATION and INSURANCE are similar in that they each relate to a real risk which exist quite independently of wether the individual chooses to buy insurance or engage in speculation. By contrast in GAMBLING the very act of GAMBLING creates a risk which did not exist before. It could be argued that the only difference between GAMBLING and SPECULATION is the type of risk.
Go to my answer to [1]
INVESTMENT is concerned with long term profit and ideally seeks to avoid risk. If risk is encountered (as is frequently the case) the investor must be adequately compensated for this risk. The investor may take on risk but this is not his goal. The speculator primarily seeks risk on which he can be dramatically compensated. In practice however there is a little speculator in every investor.
Now you are on my turf! The speculator does not seek risk!!!! He seeks a high return on his investment by outsmarting most people around him. Often he will identify low risk ventures that most people think are too risky to touch. Only gamblers and fools seek risk.
It is even so that what most people consider risky is actually less risky than they think. Professional auto racing is much safer than driving to work is for the average driver. We can identify many activities that are risky for the people that do not know what they are talking about(and if they are doing the risky thing anyway they are fools or gamblers). For the professionals these activities are very safe. Playing Russian Roulette is risky for anyone. No one can learn how to avoid the fired bullet.
We had long discussions on this Risk Issue on the AIM Board(March or April). Various interesting views were expressed there. I do not think we should go on an on with this topic here. Check the discussions on the AIM Board on this.
Regards,
Conrad
Hi Mark,
I think that we not only travel on the same boat, we even agree that we are going to the same place! We also think that the food is terrific and that the drinks are cool. Other than that you are sitting in the front and I am at the rear deck. So, you will get there before I will!
Conrad
PS: I am not sure what place it is I am going to! I thought it was Fantasy Island. I may be on the wrong boat.
Tom, Most charts give me headaches!
Usually they are stuffed with symbols and then I ask: "What do I see? The trees? The Forest? Or the Monster that may be there?
Regards,
Conrad
Hi Bernie,
Do I read between the lines that you are not ging to lend me any money?
Conrad
Darn!
Irwin: On the lottery you wrote:
The Lottery would only cost a Quarter but it would cost to much to handle all those bags of coins.
I am sure you agree.
No, I do not agree. The cost of the lottery is all the money that is paid out. As the payout rises, so does the price of the ticket, if the number of tickets remains the same.
On my point of all the money in one basket you missed my point. If the basket contained a sure winner(Insured real estate) then I would not lose anything. If on top of that the my sure-winner-payout was higher than any basket with 20 stocks in it then I would outperform the diversified basket. Simple mathematics.
Diversification doesn't autmaically reduce risk. It might even increase it.
My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with your facts(TIC).
Conrad
Aahhh, Irwin, on the house insurance you are, I think nit picking. It is true that an insurance is usually required by the lender but that is not always true. Case in point: I bought a house in 1987 for Fl. 142500 and got morhtgage of Fl. 175 000(to fix up the house). I had just arrived from Zimbabwe and only had pocket money. The bank did not require me to get insurance, believe it or not!
Bewteen 1987 and 2001 the bank never required me to take out death benefit insurance either. Can you believe that? In 2001 I was forced to sell the house(due to business debts). Without insurance the loss of the house would have been a terrible disaster(The going price was about Fl. 600 000 but I got less because of repairs that needed to be done). The bank would, to the end of my days claim the mortgage from me if they lost it due to fire or so. Walking away would not have worked unless I walked all the way to South America, or beyond.
On the other points, I have to read them first. The telephone is ticking away!
Conrad
Hello Mark, On Curve fitting.
My view on curve fitting may invalidate it's use for investment purposes as you would invoke a process that invalidates the underlying assumptions for curve fitting. On the other hand, if a certain technique [gives desirable results then I will be the last person on earth to object to its use. With curve fitting we attempt to model the real operation point of a process more closely then the measurements can reveal(due to errors). So. if data points are taken closely together then we can expect that the fitted curve matches the real data more closely than the measurements do.
In investment methods we already deal with the real data (for as far as stock prices are concerned) and in any attempt to fit a continuous curve trough the data points the real data is destroyed(as far as the fitted curve is concerned). This is the essence of my questioning the use of curve fitting with stock prices(Do a curve fit on a saw tooth wave and my point will be clear to all....you get the profile of a very worn out saw).
Mind you, I accept that important information for investing could well be a result of curve fitting, by extending the purpose of curve fitting beyond my current understanding of its purpose.
You also wrote:
This is why you should not use the AI 2.0 optimizer to optimize the parameters (i.e. create a Model) for, say, 1 year's worth of data and then use this Model for your 5 year investments. Rather you need to create a Model based on a number of time periods using different types of market conditions.
If your Model works well over all of these data points (i.e. prices), then you can be reasonably satisfied that your Model will do a good job in the future.
I read in this more a statement on optimisation rather that on curve fitting as such. If the optimisation works well then it is not relevant if curve fitting is used or not. So, I also accept that you might use optimisation to advantage. If the shoe fits, wear it!
What I object to is the argument that using 5 years of stock data works better for future system performance rather than 1 year worth of stock data. The rationale you use here, I think, is not so much an argument that a 5-year data span for an optimisation is more effective for predicting future performance than a 1-year data span, but that for may stocks a 5-year stock history usually defines the current stock behaviour better than only the stock history of the past year. Your statement might be based on your experience that for many companies the 5-year track record is more revealing for the future than the last year, but it certainly would not be true for companies that underwent a drastic change 1 year ago and have since exhibited a steady state performance on a completely different stock price. In that case the 5-year fit would be totally unfit for use.
What I conclude from this is that an optimisation process, (with or without curve fitting) must be selected based on what you already know about the stock history rather than systematically optimising any program on a 5-year-stock-data-run. Two examples Of what I mean are our KPN and KPNQuest, for which stock prises plummeted in the last few years(what else did not?). KPN will probably survive(price about 6 Euro when last saw it, and formerly abut 27 Euro). For KPNQuest, I just heard in the background, the latest deadline for survival has passed. Optimising these two stock for a 5-year history and with current low value is simply a mathematical exercise, but it would, of course, be futile for investment purposes.
I believe that in the discussions on optimisation(etc) the need for this type of thinking about an issue is maybe avoided too often, and perhaps more than is good for the discussion does the superficial views gain the greatest attention.
I hope that my treatment of the issues in this way is appreciated.
Regards,
Conrad
Hi Don, you wrote:
European equities appear to be doing something!!!
>>>>>
Since 6/24 (the whole week)the group is beginning to move....
European equities have been doing something for more than 4 months already! They have been moving steadily steadily, down!
Good time to start buying though. Anybody wants to lend me some dough? Profits 50/50 after payback of the loan. If I lose, you lose it all! Honest deal!
Conrad
Hi Barry, On Insurance.
Your explanation on utility may well have good justification as a generality but I think for most people your argument does not apply. I might simply summarise this by saying that most people that own a house do so at a marginal ability to pay for it(mortgage). Eventhough the 200/year is more expensive than the average risk at 100/year, their house could be destroyed right away, and it would ruin those people(having to pay the mortgage and no longer having a house). The averages do not help here.
The case would be entirely different for the rich guy(miser) that lives in a house small house. He simply could buy another one if he lost his house. Here your untility theory might work quite well.
In regards to your question on variuos ways of(Possibly) getting rid of money I will say this, provisionally:
Gambling is a pass time, or it is an addiction;
Insurance is to prevent uncontrollable potential loss;
Speculation is intelligent Gambling;
Investing is intelligent Asset Management.
But, if one thinks that he is investing and does it without the right tools/knowlegde, he is speculating, unintelligently!
Conrad
Mark, I could not agree more on what you said.
If lottery tickets were expensive then the take would be much lower. Just as with regular taxes, the price of the ticket is optimised....just so that people go for it without thinking(or pay their taxes without revolting).
Regards,
Conrad
The $ 1 Lottery Ticket.
An interesting example! I am not sure if this relates to the discussion on the topic but at least this one can be calculated. A poor man can afford to lose 1 Dollar and win the jackpot, or something in between. He has a definite chance of winning: A greedy rich guy might want to buy all the tickets in the lottery. In the end he is certain to lose money-No chance of winning anything(Certain Negative Payout).
So, this lottery game is simply a matter of mathematics, but in practice it is not a rational affair. Many people buy 10 or 20 tickets in order to win more but they do not realise that the payout relative to the cost is diminishing as the number of tickets they buy is rising. It would be interesting to calculate if there is an optimum number of tickets in a lottery game.
I think if you analyse this rigorously it will be shown that the best financial option is to buy 1 ticket instead of 20(unless there is indeed an optimum). However emotionally people are driven to think that more tickets is better. What is happening is this: The willingness to loose more money(buying more tickets) is tempered at some point by the effects of the potential loss(cant afford to buy more tickets). Misunderstanding how the chances are related to the number of tickets plays a much lesser role here.
So, I remain with my way of thinking about investing: The combination of odds and payout will determine what the best financial option is(reaping high profits in the long term). On top of this, an individual's interpretation of what is more important for him will always enter into the choice as to what he prefers, and can afford to lose.
What is interesting in this is that for each case one must use the optimum strategy that is defined by his objectives. A general formula for this is not possible, in my opinion.
Conrad
Irwin, Thanks for the lead.
Conrad
Irwin,
I consider risk in investing having a relationship with the payout. Considering them apart is not meaningful. After all the rolling of the dies and the all shouting is done the thing that counts is the payout.
If you are going to roll a die in amoney game you should relate the outcome of the roll(prure chance) with the earnings or loses for the rolls. You can then determine the payout and the chances of winning(orlosing) a certain amount.
Conrad
Hi Jerry,
In case of relativistic particle dynamics the genral interpretation is that mass varies with velocity, but it is not a forgone concusion as to this happens on a micro scale. For a rocket we have a definite model of how mass can change with velocity but for relativistic particles that is not the case. This poses a problem in the particle motion analysis as the mode of mass increase can not(in my opinion) be modelled.
As the mass increase is a general conclusion in the scalar quantity E=mc^2, it is a result of relativistic energy accumulation. As Force is a vector this scalar mass increase is not necessarily related to the vector velocity v in a understanable manner.
The term vdm/dt is a peculiar beast and does not always produce a force even if both v and dm/dt are non-zero but in that special case it does result in momentum change.
Coming back to relativity this also appears to be a interesting prolem: If the mechanism of mass increase is a scalar it can not be rigorously defned by the F= d/dt(mv) equation.
I wonder if this discussion should be contibued on X-DEV. Maybe I will open a Board Weird Mechanics!.
Conrad
Iwin....I mean Irwin...I did not mean that I won...yet.
You wrote:
Having everything in 1 stock does not reduce risk.
It certainly would if that one stock was a sure winner and the basket of 20 stocks contained some losers!. The issue here is of course more complex than this. A sure winner cold still produce a lower payout than a basket in which losers were present if the gains in the basket of 20 outstripped the losses.
Look at it in an other way. There are various ways of risk assessment techniques(most of them I have never heard of). I think of a risk calculation(for Example the Kelly Method) as a Profit Assesment Calculation Black Box(or give it a name you like). Then it is quite possible that output for 1 stock, with a particular investment worth X1, scores a lower risk(or higher payout potential) than the basket with 20 stocks of value X1. If you had picked 20 terrible stocks as opposed to 1 good stock then the calculation for the one stock could easily give a higher score. In this we must assume that the Black Box actually works properly and gives correct risk assessment results(something that in reality might not happen if the assessment method was faulty.
In the above it would not make any difference if value X1 was 50 dollars or if it was 100000 dollars. Nor would it matter if X1 was one's total fortune or simply a tiny fraction of it. The Back Box is immune to the external factors.
I suppose we could define a different type of risk. If a poor person invests 50 dollars at a 50 % risk of losing it then he might be better off to pay his outstanding bills with it. For a rich man the 50 dollars means probably nothing(unless it is Paul J Getty). This is an entirely different risk aspects of risk.
The dies roll the same for the pauper as for the billionaire.
That Gut Feelings can be automated simply means(for me) that any human action is a result of input and is a reasoning process( a new off topic?). If my gut feeling tells me that a certain stock is going to go uo or down then this is a result of experience, reading the market signals. Etc. Gut Feeling is a signal driven response.
If the Signal would be that Microsoft has fudged the books, then millions of gut feelings will trigger as many Sell Right Away orders. This could easily be automated. We could dub this it the Anderson Effect.
Conrad
Irwin, you wrote on what I wrote:
So how can a SR figure if it's up up and away so buy more or down we go abandon ship? I always thought that if you only invested what you are willing to lose in any one stock and worked at finding good stocks. that AIM would take advantage of the price moves to increase returns and holding between 5-10 stocks would reduce the overall risk. If one stock goes Deep Diver you could just sell and replace the stock.
I may be repeating myself... but I may say it in a different way:
I see the AIM as the basic tool as you see it. Hopefully I will end up with a automatic optimization SR to optimise for a particular Trading Range.
Then I see a SR(could be anything) that would be able to identify impending differences to the Trading Rage I am working in and for which I am willing to let AIM do the work. If the second SR shows a breakout to a higer stock price than the Trading Range then I would not sell on AIM Command but hold off selling or even buy more stock. I would do this with a gut feeling as well, and I would call that the SR I mean. (Gut Feelings can be automated).
On the Deep Diver one needs to do this as well(override AIM if necessary).
I do not see that only the AIM is executing Money Management. If I am confident that I(or my SR) predict an upper bound breakout, then I will practise smart Money Management to invest more on the rising stock. This reasoning is also true for Deep Divers. It can go both ways: Bailing out if I lost faith(overriding AIM) that the stock was worth having, or Buying more stock(with borrowed money) if the stock was worth buying. The risk assessment would, of course, be focussed on Risk Reduction.
That is my opinion an answer to your question. Whether or not I would use 1 stock or 20 in my portfolio is not at all important. The crucial thing is that if my assessment is that with all the eggs in 1 basket my risk is lower than with the eggs in 20 baskets then I will stick with that one stock.
I state that diversification is not a Holy Sacrament for investing. Diversification is used, sometimes out of ignorance. If one can not pick stock that all have high returns(or avoid divers) one can diversify and count on the average yield of the stock mix. It all depends on how much skill one has in picking high yield stock.
Do not interpret this that I would always advice against diversification. Anyone that wants to avoid picking good stocks could diversify and choose a mix of mutual funds.(TIC).
Conrad
Thanks Tom for the detailed IW reply.
I was hoping you would have some standard black box approach.
Conrad
TooFuzzy, That's a looonnngggg Plane!
Turning a 3000 m long structure around, reaching a peripheral speed of 500 mile/h will, give or take a bit, an average speed of 250 m/h. The trip from LA to new York wil take about 19 hrs! That's what you call just turning it around?
Think of the energy that will be lost due air friction at low altitude! Think of the energy that will be lost in mechanical friction(a flywheel would help). I would love to sell the ball bearings in the pivot that will be needed.
Conrad
Jerry, of course you are correct.
I was in the frame of mind of the question of the automobile, using constant mass as a simple example. For rockets, and cars that eject mass via fuel consumption, or accumulate mass in any way, this momentum approach is certainly correct, and even if you fart during acceleration.
Thanks for this add-on,
Conrad
PS: For my hasty simplification I will get all the science/tech readers on my back: I plead Guilty for my sin(and other things I might have simplified too much).
What does a Cockroach Eat?
If you have lemon you could make lemon juice. What can be done with Bad News to profit from it?
Take away the food!
Conrad
Tom, I am running way behind on the fun stuf with Relativity and energy savings etc. on the Myst Board.
Are you saying that building an IW for a single stock is not possible(lack of data avalability) or just that you have never found it important to do it?
I would think that many stocks may not mirror the broad market behaviour. What does the IW do for these stock?
Conrad
Hi, I am a bit FuzzyToo on this.
First, off the cuff, a treadmill is a horzontal device for walking on the spot(Or do you mean something else?). The almost horizontally running rubber belt creates a lot of friction...I do not actually know how much, but if you have a 150 kg guy(or heavier) then the friction could ad up. Any drive will be sized to easily overcome the friction and not to run too hot. On producing energy here...forget it. The horizontal component of the walking force of the person on the millwould have to overcome the friction plus the generation torque on the generator to produce any power. It won't work, unless you redesign the system to produce power...at most 0,5 kW if you are lucky...more likely 150 W steady state(big guy). The mill will have to be a steep incline...somethinhg like a stairway, and be almost frictionless.
On the bicycles it is different, mechanically. Bikes are highly efficient machines(Think of the Global Explorer over the English Channel).
OK, the 100 Watt output average= 50*100 W = 5kW.
At 10 h/day is 50 kWh/day and fetches $ 6/day. OK, but that is the saving as you would use the juice internally
Now the problem. Think of the investment for the equipment and the control systems for distribution per gym. The 5 kW output could be used to run a few treadmils, and maybe a bit of juice for the beer cooler.
I think I will scrap my plan to open a health club power station....Wel, I thought about it: NO.
I say it in a different way but I am sure this is what you meant: Not going ahead with the investment is more economical than building and operation the Health Club electric power plant for reducing the electricity consumption.
Conrad
Butch, for automobiles, and other masses:
Force=Mass*Acceleration.
Nobody can deny this or argue about it as it is true by definition, even for relativistic particles like electrons.
If any time you want to say something that is true then you can safely say that!
Conrad
Back Testing: Thanks all of you that commented in on my back testing remarks/questions. Right now I am off on the tangent of Relativity that Myst introduced. That makes my fire burn brighter. I have to keep things in their proper perspective: Relative to Relativity, investing plays third fiddle for me. I have to dot the i's on my first e-mail answer to Myst on speeding masses!
I may get back to back testing, some day.
Conrad
Myst, the energy equation does not at all suggest that the mass can reach the speed of light squared. The MC^2 term is consequence of the energy relationships in the Relativity Theory in which the speed of light is a fundamental factor.
If you study energy relaionships they often manifest themselves in the form of E=Kv^2 where K is a constant and the v refers to a velocity of a particle, or of a fluid, or of an enitity such as an electro-magnetic field. In this argument the value of c as the speed of light is more correctly interpreted as the propgation velocity in a vacuum for any e-m wave or photon. Even the wordt particlein this context is misleading for photons are neither simple waves nor are they simple particles.
For the mass-energy equivalence relationship the mass does not have to move at all.
Conrad
Myst on E=mc^2
Good question Myst. Mountains of literature have been written on your second question. Because of Einstein we are almost running out of trees now, and the internet is jammed with Einstein articles.
The answer that Karw provided(msg# 1715) follows the bulk of the interpretations...that is that the energy requirement will go to infinity as the speed of the mass approaches c. There are however interpretations that Relativistic Dynamics is only approximately correct, more or less in the same fashion as Newtonian Dynamics is only approximately correct.
I have provided an argument that questions the answer that Karw provided. That is that Relativistic Dynamics are not as simple and true as the mainstream educators tend to make you believe(text books are incapable of presenting the entire issue), but it became too long. So, I suffice to say here that I claim that the issue of infinte mass for a particle reaching v=c is not at all a closed case. Other interpretation can explain as to what is happening when particles are acceerated to high speed.
I have collected my thoughts on this today(based on many years of thinking on the subject) but it is too long for this Board. I send it to you by e-mail. Anyone that wants to read it can get a copy as well by e-mailing me at relativity@vortex.demon.nl
If there is enought interest it would maybe worthwhile to start a new Relativity Thread...though I am sure there are hundreds of these already.
Conrad
Hi Myst.
Yes, I remember that one, but in the list of messages I wrote I cannot pick out a specific question or issue I addressed some time ago(I suppose I could manage the messages by topic but then I need to think about it). I rather let the issues incubate and then rake up the issue out of the remnants of my memory.
I interpreted your comment that you do not think that back testing will add anything to the X_DEV functionality.
I suppose that back testing(for a reasonably short time) could provide some insight into parameter optimisation for stock price profiles that are similar to the stock being used for investing right now. But as I see it then going back 10 years is also pointless, for all you need to do is to do the testing only for the short period for which a similar pattern is already exhibited....
For example, if I see a stock price profile that looks like a sine wave then all I need to do is to test a sine wave for one cycle and optimise the parameters for a sine wave with an amplitude similar to the stock I want to invest in, and start investing right away without waiting for the analysis. That would seem sensible to me.
Right or not?
Conrad
Irwin and the Lions,
The only lions I ever saw were in the zoo and a few in Zimbabwe(at a safe distance).
As to the purpose of an AIM-system it presents only a way of creating automatic trades about which you do not have to think. In that sense it is like a washing machine. But if you put hydrochloric acid in it instead of soap it will not clean the clothes. So its operation requires something more than blind reliance on the system. Maybe the analogy is not quite right but it means to show an AIM should be used with proper attention to its purpose.
Using an AIM does not mean that one can not add all sorts of additional systems next to it to do better, or to override the AIM, if the need arises.
As to your reference to reinventing the wheel, it does not apply, or rather it is a poor analogy. Think of the high-tech wheels we have today and compare then to the wheels that the barbarians had. I say reinventing all sorts of wheels has been worth the trouble, and reinventing all sorts of AIMs also has paid off.
Conrad
On Back Testing,
I have read many of the discussions on back testing but I miss the purpose of this. We accept that the simple AIM method can produce a better yield than a buy-and-hold method. Within the limits of this basic concept one can introduce various modifications to achieve improvements. So, if we test a new variant on synthetic data( for example a sine wave of saw tooth wave) then we can test the functionality of the program for cyclic price variations. If the program works on these then it will work on real stock price variations as well. Apart from the possibilities that you might enter data that is out of range of the program's data storage system, nothing else could go wrong. In this I mean that it makes no difference where the data comes from.
So, why all the worry about testing the system with stock data going back 10 years or so? Who cares? The behaviour of future stock prices may be more weird then anything that happened in the past. You might as well create various synthetic data profiles that have the general features of stock data and test that. Why bother to dig out stock data from the past?
I any case, with stock data from the past, one would not even test the actual price history but only a shadow of it. The testing could be done with week-prices or even day-prices, but no one in his right mind would attempt to test with the minute-price profile over a 10-year period(about 1,25 million data points, and about 2,5 million if you care to take the high/low prices per minute). So any back testing you are doing is essentially also done with synthetic price profiles, as stock price histories do not represent real stock behaviour.
I do not even know if prices are recorded that often during the day, but it is clear that for a system test only periodic prices are needed...some people talked about updating only once per month.
Since I am also assuming that not all you of you Back Testers have lost you mind, I suspect that I am overlooking a bit or two, but my Aim Method has worked since 1992 and I have never back-tested at all. Also I never did any optimising yet, except in the dry runs that were published on the AIM Board.
Why is back testing such a big issue?
Conrad
Hi Cowboy,
No, I did not know that, but it does not surprise me at all. I read his By his Bootstraps(about time travel).
It is logical that many scifi writers have a solid technical background. The idea is, after all, to use a lot of sound science and technology to make the story's framework mostly 'normal' and only use specific themes that are with current know-how impossible. If you stuff the storey with too many impossibilities then the theme would be lost.
One of the best I ever read is A.C. Clarke's Rendezvous. Virtually nothing impossible happened. The impact of the story was that whatever humans actually did was of no consequence at all on the universal scheme of things, like a single ant on an elephant.
Conrad
ButchB, On the DEEP:
Don't lose any sleep over it!
Conrad
Hi ButchB. These serious Science Technology Issues on this Board have got to stop. They do nothing to help X_DEV go into orbit.
See water is much more compressible than pure distilled water. Due to the countless minerals and metals(gold, silver and magnesiun, etc.)there are countless(but finite) interstitial voids due to the low packing efficiency of the molecules, atoms and at least the unattached free electrons.
If you compress 1 liter of pure water to say 100 cc and use the same pressure to compress 1 liter of seawater then it ends up approximately as 5 cc. The uncertainty is due to the fact that we do not know exactly what a void is made off, for it can not be made of nothing(if it nothing then it cannot exist).TIC.
Conrad
Hi Skipper on the X1
Cool stuff, having been there! Me? I just invent and let the Brave do the testing. Saves me from vanishing into a deep space.
In compressed seawater you can generate a Dirac Doublet Wave that reduces its transport time to any space to near zero(inter-quark space contraction when the electrons are compressed into the core of nucleons). We call it the Andromeda Velocity(one second there and back). AndroCom beat's the hell out of WorldCom, but for now you have to have our transmitter under water going at M20. We are still working on a compressed space model. We do not yet know at what velocity in empty space that will work. It seems for now that it is not possible to measure velocity after you have crossed the Light Barrier. All this Star Trek stuff about warp speed etc. is pure nonsense!
Conrad
Irwin: The Bull or the Bear?
For some reason, after having been investing since 1992 or so, I still can't figure out if Bullish means Up or Down.
When I was kid of about 10 I wandered into a meadow in which a fully grown Holstein bull was standing, looking at me with e mean eye when I walked towards the Terrible Beast. His head was in Neutral, but when he charged it went down, the nose close to the ground, blowing steam(I heard it!). I broke the short distance land speed record for human beings getting out of that meadow. I just managed to escape under the 10 000 Volt fence wire, with the beast inches from my butt. So, Bullish meant Heads Down for me from that day on.
Later I watched Bull fighting and I saw the bull's head go sky high when he flipped the Matador into the air. From that day onwards Bullish was Heads Up for me. In Canada I went black bear hunting, but never encountered one close up. I shot the neighbour's favourite dog instead, from a distance of about 400 meter(unlucky shot, straight into the heart. I was simply trying to scare him away from our sheep). The neighbour was already 90 years old and died not too much later. I never new if it was from grief or old age. At that time I had no idea how to AIM.
How the hell am I supposed to remember the difference between Bearish and Bullish?
As to your question on B.2: If I have some expectation from a pattern recognition subroutine(SR) then I think I would think as follows:
1) If my AIM would advise a sell, and the SR would indicate a high likelihood of a continual rise(Upward Momentum?) then I would A) not sell or B) buy extra stock, or but a call option or write a call option(I know this better than the Bearish or the Bullish stuff). The B.2 SR would override the AIM Advice. I have not yet any strict format for doing this. Obviously one need to set up a criteria for activating the Override.
When the market is diving(I can remember what diving means!) Clearly the Reverse would take place: I would Override the AIM Sell Advice and conserve cash.
(Bailing out is only an option if I want to prevent losing any substantial portion of the stock value if the stock is not worth holding. Bailing out is only sensible at the top, or perhaps at the middle of the price range!
Being an AIMer I would already have let the stock dive without bailing out. It is then handy to know via an SR if the dive is diving deeper. If Yes then I would override the AIM Buy Advice. If No then use the Turbovest Method to buy more stock than AIM Advise, and buy and write Puts. That's the strategy.
In this I suspect that it might be better simply to have automatic parameter optimisation for the AIM and use the overriding separately. To link them in the SW would probably be unnecessarily complex.
Conrad
Cowboy, You may well be right.
But I chose for engineering. Maybe it is not to late?
I have written various short articles(ex. The Moon is Falling!) and somethimes I think I should have someone publish it, but it never comes to that because I fly off to do something new. Maybe I after I die someone will put it all together.
Conrad
MarketSniper X1
Love the picture. Is that you?
Sorry about making stock prices dunk all over the world. This goes to show that all stock prices already are adjusted for insider information(can't keep anything a secret). I think they call it The Transparent Market, or something like that.
Pictures on the X20 are classified. Drawings can be had for a nice price. What is you Offer?
Conrad
Thanks Tom on the PCA blurp.
Also, on your IW in the other message, I will have to digest that a bit. I am actualy interested in the calculation of the IW for single stocks. I will search your website for it, unless you tell me first if it is, or is not disclosed.
Regards,
Conrad
Fuzzy but Brilliant!
Actually if you open up a health club you could get them to pay you!!!
Now that is a terrific idea. Next step is to hook up all the health clubs in the city: Distributed Physio Energy Generation. The juice can be fed into the grid as Green Energy can fetch a premium rate of $ 0,18 per KW-Hour to the customers. Since humans consume biomass as food the electricity is CO2 Neutral. Everybody will be happy.
This is a good idea for an AIM-Investment. The Cycle Power Company Shares will cycle with great volatility. Anyone care to start with some seed money? Vortex Engineering will get into it!
Conrad
Irwin/Anybody: I will try to fit all our recent discoveries on a curve and use it in the Optimisation of my Vortex AIM.
On a Semi-Serious note, after a while of decadent inactivity on my Vortex AIM development(while assimilating all the neat ideas I learned about the last 3 months) I seem to be building up steam pressure to launch myself into orbit again. The goal is as follows:
1) The Basic Vortex AIM works fine and has various RV-Modes(RV=Reference Value=Set Point). All we need to do is to debug the Windows Program and make a User Interface that blows you away...or rather, will be irresistible to the masses that want to get rich without thinking!
2) Develop a subroutine that predicts exactly the top and bottom stock prices 1 day in the future. Then I will forget my Vortex AIM and start Day Trading. Failing that I will AIM for a method that defines the top and bottom boundaries of the stock history, outsmarting Don Carlson and X_DEX. Failing that I will simply buy the X-DEV Program, ask Don Carson how to use his new strategy, and make bundle with this Amalgam AIM.
3) Then I will call it Vortex 2.0 and for every sale I buy, for example, a X_DEV/DC Package under their Licensing. For Apple Users I make a deal with Rien to work under his OS-WYGIWYDS Licence.
Because I don't like competition I would join one or the other preferably. I do not like to beat my brains out to dilute the market. X_DEV, AI, Newport, PCA, are already in the same market. Who the hell needs a Vortex Program if it does essentially nothing more than what the other programs already do?
Here is my plan:
A) I like my Vortex AIM more than Lichello's AIM. So I will debug VORTEX and improve its Portfolio Management features. Any Dutch Beta-Testers lining up?
B) I want to add an Optimization Subroutine but I see no point in developing one myself from scratch. I am a tinkerer with ideas, not a programmer. So, I want to combine the following from one of your brilliant programmers:
B.1) An automatic Parameter Tuning Subroutine(optimising the past).
B.2) A Pattern Recognition SubRoutine so that some predictive elements are established for making decisions on Selling at the top and Not Buying if a dip is developing. I am not sure yet if this can be combined with B.1 or not. Maybe it is better to simply leave B.2 apart and Run Vortex on B.1 and then let B.2 create the Overrides for VORTEX. The B.2 may well be TA as a start.
Any comments?
Conrad
LemonHead asked:
......is X20. Is that evaporated water?
No, it is a secret experimental Mini Sub desiged to break the H2O Barrier. It is launched from the torpedo tube in a regular sub. The initial drive is an H2O2 turbine driven propellor. This drive is dropped after cavitation on the propellor starts. The final drive is a type of Aquatic Ramjet, using pure HTP with a secret catalist, transforming compressed seawater into superheated steam.
The researchers AIM for 1 M2O(1 Mach in H2O)
Conrad