打飛機都停落嚟睇股票 我真係痴q左線

孤打救我

散户短炒長期係會輸錢

長揸指數etf

想自己玩下咪買小小指數股，不要出出入入搞咁多

好似啊媽係女人咁

贏完一次唔好以為自己真係估中，輸都唔代表你錯

太多原因可以影響股價

講真 日日面對呢啲數字 感到厭倦未

停完, 買完, 再起機

咁月袋10皮

聽住預算案民建聯何俊賢都可以邊沽住阿里巴巴邊聽嘅

仲民建聯

咩年代呀

我係買完 起機 停 再起機 再停

投資前唔溫好功課就抵你輸啦

你確定佢有聽？

何傻賢唔係你啲凡夫俗子、黎民百姓呀

Here are a few insights on the rentech process from Nick Patterson, one of their senior statisticians there for a decade:

[...I joined a hedged fund, Renaissance Technologies, I'll make a comment about that. It's funny that I think the most important thing to do on data analysis is to do the simple things right. So, here's a kind of non-secret about what we did at renaissance: in my opinion, our most important statistical tool was simple regression with one target and one independent variable. It's the simplest statistical model you can imagine. Any reasonably smart high school student could do it. Now we have some of the smartest people around, working in our hedge fund, we have string theorists we recruited from Harvard, and they're doing simple regression. Is this stupid and pointless? Should we be hiring stupider people and paying them less? And the answer is no. And the reason is nobody tells you what the variables you should be regressing [are]. What's the target. Should you do a nonlinear transform before you regress? What's the source? Should you clean your data? Do you notice when your results are obviously rubbish? And so on. And the smarter you are the less likely you are to make a stupid mistake. And that's why I think you often need smart people who appear to be doing something technically very easy, but actually usually not so easy.]

樓豬連econometrics都未讀過就同佢講regress