<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Research on Chris Zeng</title>
    <link>https://chris-zeng.pages.dev/tags/research/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Research on Chris Zeng</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://chris-zeng.pages.dev/tags/research/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Testing Whether Order Flow Can Predict Price</title>
      <link>https://chris-zeng.pages.dev/posts/order-flow-imbalance/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://chris-zeng.pages.dev/posts/order-flow-imbalance/</guid>
      <description>I implemented a famous 2010 order-flow paper on four years of tick data and reproduced its headline result almost exactly: 67% R². Then I spent weeks trying to turn that signal into a trade. It died on the spread every single way I tried, across four years and six strategies. Reproducing the paper was an afternoon. Proving there was no money in it was the real work.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
