If someone claims to have predictive power for _something_, he/she should provide only two things: a point estimate and a confidence interval for t+h (h is given). No words, no jargon, no "explanation," no stories, etc. Just those two things. Then we can start.
Sure but it’s much easier to post 7-8 vague predictions (“watch out for weakness in x”, “look to fade y”, “z is looking good”, “nice setup for w”) without specific timelines and then go back and retweet the ones which vaguely match reality.
-
-
Not even suggesting people do this maliciously (though I’m sure some do). Self deception and confirmation bias are incredibly powerful.
-
I even see this with professional trading teams. Them: our backtest has a Sharpe of 2 but our realized track is only about 1.2 Me: looking at their realized track which clearly has a Sharpe of 0.6
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Horoscope for daytraders
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.