AI
Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:17:34 PM
Hallo Clive,
With d'Alembert's Rule I have plenty of experience: it says the the Sum of external and inertial forces sum op to zero
0 =Sun(Fe)-Fi. . .simple dynamics
but I bet you meant something else!!! I will look it up!.
On the rebalance thing I would tend to agree with you. This is why understanding the market and how it is most likely to move is so very importance to beat the herd that does not understand it. This is not mean to sat that I understand the market moves a lot! On rebalance I would tend to follow my "feel" for the market. . .let the profit run unless the volatility on the way up is strong so that selling/buying will accelerate portfolio growth.
Confusing I know, but what is in effect occurring is that d'Alemberts generates profits out of 50/50 outcomes whilst most other methods just break-even.
The exact details escapes me for now but from your conclusion I feel there is some similarity with the aggressive buying in dips that typically are the idea of my aggressive Vortex settings. . accepting that many stocks fluctuate more or less randomly the +/- moves are generally 50/50 events. By buying strongly in the dips one gets out of it with strong gains rather than approximately break even. The risk that the price stays down for good is less than 50%. . it must be. Is that the essential of d'Alembert's idea to gain on 50/50 events or does his idea strictly relate to rebalancing?
The level of analytical work you are doing astounds me. Even though I am a technical chap the depth of your work goes over my head. .it is something that I try to avoid. . when I see the complex charts about stock movements with 10 or more curves on it I, as quickly as possible (usually) turn to something else!
I appreciate your response though.
With d'Alembert's Rule I have plenty of experience: it says the the Sum of external and inertial forces sum op to zero
0 =Sun(Fe)-Fi. . .simple dynamics
but I bet you meant something else!!! I will look it up!.
On the rebalance thing I would tend to agree with you. This is why understanding the market and how it is most likely to move is so very importance to beat the herd that does not understand it. This is not mean to sat that I understand the market moves a lot! On rebalance I would tend to follow my "feel" for the market. . .let the profit run unless the volatility on the way up is strong so that selling/buying will accelerate portfolio growth.
Confusing I know, but what is in effect occurring is that d'Alemberts generates profits out of 50/50 outcomes whilst most other methods just break-even.
The exact details escapes me for now but from your conclusion I feel there is some similarity with the aggressive buying in dips that typically are the idea of my aggressive Vortex settings. . accepting that many stocks fluctuate more or less randomly the +/- moves are generally 50/50 events. By buying strongly in the dips one gets out of it with strong gains rather than approximately break even. The risk that the price stays down for good is less than 50%. . it must be. Is that the essential of d'Alembert's idea to gain on 50/50 events or does his idea strictly relate to rebalancing?
The level of analytical work you are doing astounds me. Even though I am a technical chap the depth of your work goes over my head. .it is something that I try to avoid. . when I see the complex charts about stock movements with 10 or more curves on it I, as quickly as possible (usually) turn to something else!
I appreciate your response though.
Conrad Winkelman
What is Vortex AIMing? Look for my Vortex Discussion Forum:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1341
Join the InvestorsHub Community
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.
