Hey I have a data science background. This is good and entertaining fluff, but if you know what you're looking at, there are important things missing and some things that look good but don't make sense. I give him 4.8/5 for making it look important. For example: He has two time series (S&P500 and the bonds) and he compares them to many possible offsets. This is called cross-correlation analysis. It's a real thing, but it's also notorious for overfitting the data and showing spurious relationships if you misuse it like OP dies here. When you test many different offsets, you increase the probability of finding a high correlation *somewhere*, purely out of random chance. This is kind of like flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row; it's impressive if you only flipped the coin 10 times, but much less exciting if you flipped it 10 million times. You were bound to get a 10-head steak at some point. An overfit predictor is one that performs very well on the historical data used to find it, but poorly on new, unseen data. If you select the single best lag based purely on the highest R-value from your historical test (precisely what OP did here), you risk overfitting to random noise that exists in the sample, but isn't truly predictive. And that's almost surely been done here and the validation should have been on showing that the model isn't overfit. To validate a model like that you wouldn't back-test (what OP does). Some things you could do are split the data into in and out of sample (e.g. make the model based on only the first X days in the series, and then judge it based on its ability to predict the data after day X). You should/could take steps to remove seasonality or trends within the time series first (which we already damn well know the stock market is seasonal, so him using untransformed values is most definitely increasing his calculated correlation). It would also be good to do bootstrapping to check statistical significance, instead of just p value. But it is very entertaining. OP probably also has a data background, to be knowing what to do to specifically torture the data this way.

---

Don't be so sure. It \*just\* consolidated and ready to reach a new price.

---

New Strat for 2025

---

>2 yrs ago That's your problem? Anyone with any exp with options/investing/trading or those in r/thetagang would tell you that "the further out something is, the harder it is to predict". That's why you don't go ultra long on options unless you're fucking sure of it. How would you know that Feds would cut so much, AI would go nuclear, Biden wouldn't run, Trump would become president, liberation day would happen, and/or that corruption/grift would be the new cool kids thing? Answer is you can't. Then there's the being 🌈🐻thing. That's always a tough game to play even for the best of hedgies/traders. Markets are LITERALLY getting rigged by everyone in the American economy for it to go up: CEOs, analysts, bankers, JPow & the Fed, the president, the congress, the judges, the SEC, the states, the governors, the ethics review boards, city DAs, the janitors, ICE agents, illegals chilling outside home depot, Santa Claus (with his rally), Blackrock/Vanguard/Statestreet, private equity, public equity, your mom, me when I'm with your mom, dogs who destory their chew toys, fat cats who gaslight their owners into believing they forgot to feed their cat to get a 2nd helping, etcetcetc. I clearly knew MSTR was an over-valued leveraged con within a leveraged con and thought about buying puts on it this whole year (maybe just to have some insurance in case we got a correction/crash/recession since it was the most overpriced piece of trash in a sea of overpriced assets) but reminded myself the trade off usually isn't worth it. I was right about MSTR, but I'm also not upset for missing out on the trade because my bullish ones worked out just fine. Lastly, you fucked up trying to express that position with calls (hope you had them covered). No pre-defined losses is bad news. I would have gone with selling many short term far OTM puts to pay for longer further out puts. Or maybe just buy puts when I felt it went up too much. TL;DR I'm pretty certain you didn't ask and probably wouldn't have listened to anyone back then. Just like how you won't listen to me now.

---

https://preview.redd.it/2o6agi18te8g1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c864cd643f0812f05d249014b2bb561bb2022d0f All hail our new leader

---

Dear Boomers of Reddit, I am Millennial.  Historically, I would like to know if the market has always been filled with doomer ber retards or if this is a new occurrence because my technical analysis (looking at 5y and Alltime charts) makes it appear that stocks only go up Thanks, Best wishes, Sincerely, Retard 

---

>Universal Studios to build new theme park in Saudi Arabia: WSJ #They should call it Allah Park LMAO🤌

---

But his y strike is $5 and the stock is at $73. At over 3K shares after exercising it seems to not reflect that? I’m not arguing cause options are very new to me. But it seems like his options cost him about $2k dollars and are now worth $65k . But 3K shares at $73 is 219,000! So I’m ok with being wrong but what am I missing?

---

Imagine thinking "AI" is anything but a grift you dumb fuck, we've been using it in science for 20 years, it's not a new tool, it has no new capabilities, it just IS what it is. Yet people like you think it's the future, it's not, it can't even handle a fucking McDonald's order.

---

Good move. If it's too good to be true it probably is. My new rule will be to never buy at ath and to exit after any miraculous short term 10% gains. There ain't no free lunch and greed just gets you burned time and time again. What can go up 40% in 3 months can also go back down 40% in 3 months or less. High beta means always living on the edge.

---