On September 28th, James noted (erroneously) that it is...
This tweet contained two errors, the first is that none of my systems discussed on the blog rely in any way on fundamental data, the second is the implication that fundamental analysis is based on public data.
James commented today that:
By James' own definition:
James commented today that:
Once again, I didn't say fundamental data is, and only is, public data.
That is certainly what a reasonable person might infer from the tweet. James blames Twitter's 140 character limit for the confusion, writing:
Tweet size limit prevented me from typing "using public data", which your systems do use (i.e. public price and fundamental data).
Incorrect. My systems use price date, which is public and technical. They do not use fundamental data which comprises such elements as "injury reports, previous results, days of rest, time zones, individual match ups and so on".
"Using public data" does not make any of my systems fundamental analysis based.
Fundamental data can be public or private.
Technical data can be public or private.
By James' own definition:
a technical trader pays no attention to the past performances of entrants, only considering price movements, market behaviour and structure.
How much more technical could the simple systems discussed in this blog be?
The clarification needed is for James to explain how my systems are fundamental. So far, I've not seen an explanation that supports this claim.
1 comment:
A lot of your data screenshots display win/loss etc. figures for teams.
If you don't use such fundamental data in your systems then fair enough.
Post a Comment