Brain-training tasks related to trading in one way or another. Theorist, game theory, etc. - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I have proved the inequality, viz:
p(AA) + p(BB) >= p(AB) + p(BA)
no matter what the value of p(A) is, i.e. greater than 0.5, less than or equal to that very 0.5.
That's grandiose! Only the point is exactly what I said, which is that the more likely event happens more often. In a series of two, in a series of three, in a series of however many...
All that remains is to find this event in the market.
timbo:
Well it's understandable that you're just trying to bullshit your opponent and bullshit your way out of it.
I didn't actually prove what you are trying to attribute to me.
I proved the inequality, namely that:
p(AA) + p(BB) >= p(AB) + p(BA)
no matter what the value of p(A) is, i.e. greater than 0.5, less than or equal to this very 0.5.
It's grandiose! Only the point is exactly what I said, which is that the more likely event happens more often. In a series of two, in a series of three, in a series of however many...
All that remains is to find this event in the market.
Once again, for the particularly gifted near-scientific commentators who brazenly twist their opponent in order to peddle their bullshit. We are talking about an inequality that holds true no matter with what probability event A occurs, i.e. more often p(A) >= 0.5 or less often p(A) <= 0.5
The point has already been explained here, it is that if there is a constant (at least in terms of the sign) trend, martingale allows you to have a positive MO even if the sign of this trend is unknown. If you play without spreads and commissions.
I will not repeat about the practical value of this result for us, I just want to say that hypothetical guys with infinite capital and the ability to play without spreads are in a much worse position than most. We can reason in the approximation that our actions do not affect the market, but they do not.
Once again, for the particularly gifted near-scientific commentators who brazenly twist their opponents in order to peddle their bullshit. It is an inequality which holds regardless of the probability of event A, i.e. more often p(A) >= 0.5 or less often p(A) <= 0.5
The point has already been explained here, it is that if there is a constant (at least in terms of the sign) trend, martingale allows you to have a positive MO even if the sign of this trend is unknown. If we play without spreads and commissions.
If the trend is constant in its sign, the martingale is not needed. This sign is determined by the first trade, and then the exponential pyramiding until all the money on the Earth runs out.
Well, the hypothetical guys are simply in a state of trading in a low-liquid market (but these are very hypothetical guys). If anyone wants to feel in their shoes, it's very easy. There are plenty of low-liquid stocks where a single trade can take hours or not take place at all because there are no bidders.
This mark is determined by the first transaction
Once again for triplets: it does not matter which event occurs more often A or B, they are equal. If the probability of A is higher, then A and AA happen more often, if the probability of B is higher, then B and BB happen more often. Which is what happens in your sacred formula. The more likely event happens more often, for which I congratulate you!
Did Akela miss?
... with a 50% chance.
But it's never too late to correct a mistake. Especially "not too late" to do so on the second deal.
what is equivalence ?
... with a 50% chance.
But it's never too late to correct a mistake. Especially "not too late" to do so on the second deal.
Eagle-Rushka, black-white, meet a dinosaur around the corner or don't... Binary logic. Event A is no better than event B, only one of them can happen (and will happen).
Bearded timbo anecdote:
Teacher: What is the probability of meeting a dinosaur around the corner?
Blondie: 50%. Either we meet or we don't.