Talk:Dogs of the Dow

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The Dogs of the Dow were created by data mining"

I assume the above sentence was intended to mean that faulty statistical sampling and/or faulty statistical analysis led to the fallacious strategy, "Dogs of the Dow." If i am right that's what the intended meaning was, the sentence should be changed, and a citation should be provided.-Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "The Dogs of the dow were an artifact of faulty data mining(or faulty sampling instead of faulty data mining}24.7.28.186 (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

caution

Respected Sir

links were missing now its fixed

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courage respect (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs of the Dow → Dogs of the dow – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term. There is no reason to capitalise. Tony (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Isn't "Dow" the Dow Jones Industrial Average? Seems like that need to stay capped regardless. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? "Dow" is not a common noun here but a proper name. 216.8.143.76 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Named after Charles Dow. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Tony is not his usual sharp self today; Dow is the DJIA. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please close this? It's an obvious snowball of opposition, and just a waste of time to keep it open. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Back Tested Curve Fitting

The Dogs of the Dow being a good investment strategy results from the stocks at YEAR END did well for a number of years. However, if you look at the performance of the Dogs at a time other than year-end that were NOT on the list of the previous or following year-end, you will find that those particular stocks performed no better and no worse than any other Dow stock.

Since the original list, at year-end, was created by curve fitting, it is necessary to avoid using stocks that were included at year-end since they outperformed at some point during the year.

This method showed The Motley Fool that it's Foolish Four had no statistical significance and they dropped the Foolish Four from its recommendation. Neil Hecht, using the pseudonym Qwerty_RP4, thought of this method to prove, or disprove, the validity of the Foolish Four. 72.83.37.4 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]