Profit from a random price range - page 2

New comment
 
Integer:

Dube proved the impossibility of a systematic win on a random series of data. He's a mathematician. Simply put - there is no system for winning at a constant bet.

I won't say anything about eagle-eye, but I recently discovered once again that you can make money on a normal distribution. Some time ago I checked it in Excel, and now I've checked it on a number of samples.
 
Integer:

Dube proved the impossibility of a systematic win on a random series of data. He's a mathematician. Simply put - there is no system for winning at a constant bet.

And then two Russian traders Chebotarev and Yashin write an article and say that the American named Dub is not a mathematician but a moron.
 
Rosh:
Integer:

Dube proved the impossibility of a systematic win on a random series of data. He's a mathematician. Simply put - there is no system for winning at a constant bet.

I won't say anything about the eagle, but I recently discovered once again that it is possible to make money on the normal distribution. Some time ago I checked it in Excel, and now I've checked it with multiple samples.
If you take into account that the quotes are not exactly normal distribution, you can make even more money on them.
 

Similar studies of the normal distribution have been carried out by Northern Wind. The link is http://forum.fxclub.ru/showthread.php?t=32942. Rosh, you are just a little bit away from the grail: you have to convert real data into normally distributed ones. This is also Northwind's idea...

2 usdjpy: the crowd of people who think Dub is a moron is growing and spreading...

 
Rosh:
Integer:

Dube proved the impossibility of a systematic win on a random series of data. He's a mathematician. Simply put - there is no system for winning at a constant bet.

I won't say anything about the eagle, but I recently discovered once again that it is possible to make money on the normal distribution. Some time ago I checked it in Excel, and now I've checked it with multiple samples.

It's natural and normal.
 
usdjpy:
Integer:

Dube proved the impossibility of a systematic win on a random series of data. He's a mathematician. Simply put - there is no system for winning at a constant bet.

And here two Russian traders Chebotarev and Yashin write an article and claim that the American dub is not a mathematician but a moron.



Unfortunately I could not read the article, but I got the impression that Chebotarev and Yashin are just gathering an address database for spam - first too crazy pictures, then

You are in the group of users who are not allowed to do this action.

On a limited sample once optimised you can get a profit. Make it infinite and you get a big fich.

 
Integer:

On a limited sample, once optimised, you can make a profit. Make it infinite and you get a big fich.

Give us some examples of optimization on infinite sample. IMHO the supporters of oak are as oaky as their idol.
 
Mathemat:

Similar studies of the normal distribution have been carried out by Northern Wind. The link is http://forum.fxclub.ru/showthread.php?t=32942. Rosh, you are just a bit away from the grail: you have to convert real data into normally distributed ones. This is also Northwind's idea...

2 usdjpy: the crowd of people who think Dub is a moron is growing and spreading...

Yes?! Interesting idea, wouldn't have thought of it myself. That is, to find such a transformation of source data (quotes) to see normal increments? And how does it work?
 
newton, you're lying: they don't call Dub an underdog in the article. And the fortnightly pipsqueak test they offer is not an argument in its favour.
 
usdjpy:
Integer:

On a limited sample, once optimised, you can make a profit. Make it infinite and you get a big fich.

Come on, give us some examples of infinite sampling optimization in the studio. IMHO the supporters of oak are as oaky as their idol.


What does this have to do with it? I'm talking about taking a finite sample, optimising a strategy on it and then using that sample this optimised strategy shows a profit. This is by no means a refutation of Dub's evidence.

Dub cannot have supporters, he is neither a religious figure nor a politician. There can be two categories - those who understand him and those who do NOT understand him.

123456789
New comment