[mooseboy84]

Ive been meaning to post this for a while, but havent had the time. I dont know if its been talkied about or not, but I knew this would be the place to bring it up.

A couple of weeks ago or so, I heard Greenspan on the radio talking about the federal reserve and the big meltdown, stating how "economic forecasting" is only right 60% of the time.

Now, with all the PHDs and years of studying the economy that work (manipulate) the markets in the reserve, to only be right 60% of the time was rather shocking to me.

I know for a fact, the some of the top cappers have about a 60% rate +/-, so I would assume the federal reserve, with all its power to manipulate and starve/thrive the economy at will would have a much higher success rate in predicting what happens, since they in large part dictate what happens.

Maybe im not phrasing the question correctly, but does anyone else find it interesting greenspan said economic forecasting is no better than capping?

[marcoforte]

I don't find it so.

1. There are many more variables many of which can't really be quantified well.
2. No one has settled on whether the economy depends on gov spending or main st. spending. That's what the election is about, BHO says the gov knows best, JM says give it to the capitalist system, consumers and businesses.
3. The old theories still work: Rothschild or Rockefeller said buy when there's blood in the street. Witness this past week in the market, if you had the balls and money, you had a 10% or better return in 7 days.
4. The only difference between capping and stocks is the timeline. Finite 1 week or 1 day, with capping and about 2 years to work out a stock position. I tried to make this argument to my dad for 30 years. He was a contrarian as am I in both stocks and the NFL where I play dogs and unders predominantly.
5. If you do well in one you can do well in the other because both are about money management, discipline, and understanding and visualizing value.

[carrenzo]

6 p's great rule to live by.

Gotta Love Cramer and Mad Money. Direct this question to him to see what he thinks.


http://www.thestreet.com/tsc/commerce/faq/faq.html

http://apps.thestreet.com/cms/email/...aap/index.html

[Dark Horse]

Wall Street and sports capping require the same, or very similar, skill sets. The main differences are that Wall Street is almost entirely made up of squares, and is far more corrupt. With the recent volatility the stock market is gambling on steroids. Poker players may be more comfortable with these type of fluctuations. When everybody runs for the exits in panic you have to be able to stand fearless. But you can only do so if you know what you're doing. Most people in the stock market are not that informed. That's why they're so susceptible to fear.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Or perhaps, the term "fear" is overused and oversimplified when discussing Wall St. Many investors simply need to bail out of their positions, either by way of stop losses or that tricky little term called value is no longer applicable to a certain asset.

[Dark Horse]

Fear is very real in the markets.

[marcoforte]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Fear is very real in the markets.

It occurs everyday in the sports market. How many people have the balls to take a double digit dog or an under at 37? Everyone would rather take a strong fav or an over. It just feels right. Just like buying at market peaks instead of market valleys.

[pico]

it is nice that you guys started this topic because i do think there is a lot of overlapping skills between wall street and sports betting.

in trading you have fundamental analsysis and techinical analysis.

in sports we have people who knows the teams, study from an angle. we also have people who look at stats and line movements.


i think sports is more interesting than financial and less rigged, more transparent.

[marcoforte]

Originally Posted by pico

it is nice that you guys started this topic because i do think there is a lot of overlapping skills between wall street and sports betting.

in trading you have fundamental analsysis and techinical analysis.

in sports we have people who knows the teams, study from an angle. we also have people who look at stats and line movements.


i think sports is more interesting than financial and less rigged, more transparent.

I totally agree but the problem is the positions you can take in the sports market are too small. Plus, it's hard to move money unlike the stock market where they'll even loan you money on up to half your position.

[carrenzo]

If you pick your position on sports games and if your strict on what you bet after research. I think you will find where ever you put your money and you stay in tune into whats going on. You will make a decent living. If it's sports or Wall Street. I still like the 6Ps. I would have to say 60% is good if your a whale.

U.S a Whale? I would most certainly think so.