Massive stock rally today (3/10/2009)

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

But human nature is fairly predictable and that is what I'm looking at when looking at old data. This is a completely different world then what existed in the past but we are the same old stupid, greedy, fearful human beings. That is where I try to find the "order in chaos".

are you fucking kidding me? Human nature is perfectly unpredictable. After 4 years of psychology undergrad, resulting in a BS, I know that pretty damn well. if it were fairly predictable Psychology wouldn't be a still developing soft-science and we'd not be using drugs to solve problems and use targeted treatments.

Behavioral finance points out that there are some emotions that can be somewhat predictable, but the reactions caused by those emotions cannot be. The chaos, not predictability, in the market is caused by humans. If you think otherwise you have a very, very, long way to go.

Humans are not rational nor will they ever be. Rationality is order and predictability. You need to go back and try to bring order to your own knowledge before you extrapolate what you think you know into solid decisions.

LOL, quit trying to act so "superior" because your not. I never claimed I could predict the future, yet you act as if I claim it can be done? It can't, but I find that looking at what has happened in the past helps one to understand what is happening in the present and you'd be foolish to completely ignore it. I feel it's another tool that helps you recognize a good bet from a bad bet.

I've always believed that there is order in chaos, but it is not predictable. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50. One just has to be aware that there is no "sure" bet.

 

[The-Noid]

The most important thing is that futures markets are actually providing a correct correlation with where the market is going for the day.

In the last few months futures really provided us with no idea of which direction we were headed which was indicative that we were not trading on any fundamentals, only fear.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
The most important thing is that futures markets are actually providing a correct correlation with where the market is going for the day.

In the last few months futures really provided us with no idea of which direction we were headed which was indicative that we were not trading on any fundamentals, only fear.

Are you sure? I remember waking up day after day with futures down like 90 and the market tanking. If it's not acting out of fear now it's acting out of, possibly, greed, is that any more sane?

 

[The-Noid]

9 days in a row the futures were up +-1.5% and ended the day the opposite way. Usually they have a 95% chance of predicting within 53% of where the market will end.

Confidence intervals however have gone to hell in this market.

Watch today it could be interesting. Above 832 and there is nothing stopping us from really rallying to 854.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
LOL, quit trying to act so "superior" because your not. I never claimed I could predict the future, yet you act as if I claim it can be done? It can't, but I find that looking at what has happened in the past helps one to understand what is happening in the present and you'd be foolish to completely ignore it. I feel it's another tool that helps you recognize a good bet from a bad bet.

I've always believed that there is order in chaos, but it is not predictable. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50. One just has to be aware that there is no "sure" bet.

Order in chaos? Are you kidding me?

If there were "order in chaos" the world's richest man wouldn't be a guy who invests in long-term value driven plays, it'd be some day trader or hedge fund manager. Sorry, but long-term, "chaos" is against you because you can't hope to predict it.

Show me a technical trader that has delivered multi-decade gains and I'll show you a guy who is the luckiest man on earth.

I do not disagree that historicals are useful, but acknowledging their ability for prediction is key. Showing random price points and attempting to extrapolate them into some type of "buyer beware" story is silly. I've always maintained that there are far more important and relevant measurements than what Dullard posted.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

 

[scruffypup]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

If you bet your life,... then there would be a 50% chance you would be dead,....

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

But there's a history of it landing on heads... I would say it would probably land on heads again. Always landing on heads is very odd, and there's probably some trick to it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

But there's a history of it landing on heads... I would say it would probably land on heads again. Always landing on heads is very odd, and there's probably some trick to it.

LOL, first check to make sure it isn't a two-headed coin.

 

[scruffypup]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

But there's a history of it landing on heads... I would say it would probably land on heads again. Always landing on heads is very odd, and there's probably some trick to it.

Unless it is a 2 headed coin,... then it just happened,.. things happen!!! IT is still 50/50 no matter how you look at it, sometimes things defy the expected odds,... but what happened the previous 9 times has no bearing on the 10th time.

 

[scruffypup]

Originally posted by: scruffypup

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

But there's a history of it landing on heads... I would say it would probably land on heads again. Always landing on heads is very odd, and there's probably some trick to it.

Unless it is a 2 headed coin,... then it just happened,.. things happen!!! IT is still 50/50 no matter how you look at it, sometimes things defy the expected odds,... but what happened the previous 9 times has no bearing on the 10th time.

You hear about past stats in sports all the time and most often they have little to no correlation on the game being played due to different players on the teams from the past, etc, etc,....

The current stock market has some correlation to its past, but everyone should be able to see that it doesn't have complete correlation,...

It is a matter of how much correlation there is to events of the past,...

With a coin there is zero correlation to the past

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

Simple math says it doesn't matter, because the probability of flipping a head and a tail on the 10th coin toss are equal.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

Simple math says it doesn't matter, because the probability of flipping a head and a tail on the 10th coin toss are equal.

How about if it were 99 heads in a row? Or 999? It's still a 50/50 chance on each toss.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 times in a row the probabilty of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, yet the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50.

This doesn't make any sense. First you state that if a coin is flipped and comes up heads 9 times in a row, the probability of it being tails on the next flip is increasing, which is incorrect. You then state the chance of any individual flip being tails is still only 50/50, which is correct.

Your first statement contradicts your second one.

Flipping 10 heads in a row is an unlikely event, but it has the exact same probability of occurring as flipping 9 heads in a row followed by a tail.

So if you had to bet your life would you rather bet on that 10th flip being a head or a tail? Personally I'd go with the tail.

Simple math says it doesn't matter, because the probability of flipping a head and a tail on the 10th coin toss are equal.

How about if it were 99 heads in a row? Or 999? It's still a 50/50 chance on each toss.

Obviously at some point you would have to question whether or not the coin was biased, but if we assume the coin is not biased, then the math doesn't change, no matter how many heads in a row you flip. Consider the following two sequences of 30 flips:

HTHHHTHTHTHTHHHTTTHTHTHHTHTHTT
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The first sequence looks much more random than the second, but both have the exact same probability of occurring. It's just that no one ascribes any significance to the first pattern, so no one would find it odd if that pattern were to occur.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
9 days in a row the futures were up +-1.5% and ended the day the opposite way. Usually they have a 95% chance of predicting within 53% of where the market will end.

Confidence intervals however have gone to hell in this market.

Watch today it could be interesting. Above 832 and there is nothing stopping us from really rallying to 854.

Still a lot of resistance at 832 it is being much more stubborn than I thought. Again, if we can take this out you are going to get another big rip higher. Hopefully we can do it tomorrow to close out the month. I would look for a lot of volume tomorrow as managers try to at least save some face for the quarter on their quarterly reports.

Should be an interesting Friday to say the least.

 

[StageLeft]

Hmm, it's getting hammered pretty hard now, at minus 300 so far, this after Friday's -148. Still way up from the lows, though.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Hmm, it's getting hammered pretty hard now, at minus 300 so far, this after Friday's -148. Still way up from the lows, though.

Thats because people realized that Citibank and AIG's profits were government handouts intermediated by AIG. Expect the bottom to fall out this week.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Hmm, it's getting hammered pretty hard now, at minus 300 so far, this after Friday's -148. Still way up from the lows, though.

Thats because people realized that Citibank and AIG's profits were government handouts intermediated by AIG. Expect the bottom to fall out this week.

This thing is very unpredictable, it's hard to know what a reasonable investment is. Oil has gone up but then come down hard today, commodities are down crazy big time, financials up a lot, then down. I think gold has been a fairly stable investment since last year although it's even had a lot of fluctuation. Treasuries have been up then down then up.

After Friday's 148 point loss, back to the CNBC theme, Cramer said it was actually a good sign, that it wasn't a dead cat bounce. I wonder what he'll say tonight, not that it matters at all.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
Watch today it could be interesting. Above 832 and there is nothing stopping us from really rallying to 854.

I was a bit early on this one, but it is hard to argue with it at this point. Above 846 now you have to fade this rally as the fireworks will stop. Having said that I think we will still have a monster day today.

From a technical standpoint we are doing exactly as we should. Retrace to the 50day bounce off it yesterday and rally today. This may be setting up as a real bottom, if the economy does not fall off another cliff. Having said that tomorrow will be interesting with jobs but the whisper number is already for -750k so anything less than that we should rally again.

 

[Thump553]

I have to admit that I'm very surprised the market has been holding it's own or rallying this week. There has been plenty of bad news to turn the bear market rally to a tailspin (GM CEO firing, record unemployment numbers, home sale numbers still falling, car sales miserable, and the probable minimal positive news from the G20 meeting).

I'm always too optimistic about the market but perhaps we have actually turned a corner in the investing public's mindset, where they start to react more to positive news than negative. Anyway, I welcome the upturn.

 

[ithec]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I have to admit that I'm very surprised the market has been holding it's own or rallying this week. There has been plenty of bad news to turn the bear market rally to a tailspin (GM CEO firing, record unemployment numbers, home sale numbers still falling, car sales miserable, and the probable minimal positive news from the G20 meeting).

I'm always too optimistic about the market but perhaps we have actually turned a corner in the investing public's mindset, where they start to react more to positive news than negative. Anyway, I welcome the upturn.

omfg jynx

 

[Bitek]

Ah, but the bad news isn't that bad, which makes it good news. Let's see what the quarterlies look like and see if its got legs.

 

[First]

Terrible news was expected so it was already priced in. I thought a down day was a given knowing that the job report losses were worse by several thousand, but overall a nice "bear" market rally. We're definitely seeing the first signs of recovery in confidence, but job growth is still likely to be slow for a good while. There's always the (good) possibility we see another tech-driven boom (in which tech field it's hard to know), but barring anything game changing, I still expect the start of the next boom by the end of year and all through 2010. The job market definitely needs to stiffen up though.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
I still expect the start of the next boom by the end of year and all through 2010.

When do you expect its bust?