Brain-training tasks related to trading in one way or another. Theorist, game theory, etc. - page 6
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
First of all, no one is forcing me to. Secondly, I posted it for those who are interested. Thirdly, the robot for what? We put the Council and if you want to untie your hands. WANTED!!! :)
Well, then create a separate thread and it put misinformation from the books about the casino and other software.
Why go into other people's threads and shit off the top?
Rinse your eyes with juice and read the title of the thread carefully: it says "Tasks for brain training ...", not brainwashing crap.
Well, then create your own separate thread and post there misinformation from books about casinos and other software.
Why go into other people's threads and shit off the top?
Rinse your eyes with compote, and carefully read the title of the thread: it says, "Tasks for brain training ...", and not bullshit to wash them.
Did someone step on your toes today? Or are probability calculations no longer an issue today? Or has "Roulette" knocked you off your feet? So what difference does it make which model is used as long as it claims to be complete? In fact, justify your indignation, would you?
Has someone stepped on your toes today? Or probability calculations are no longer the task? Or has Roulette gone astray? So what difference does it make which model is used as long as it claims to be complete? In fact, justify your indignation, would you?
Your posts are completely devoid of probability calculations, and the figures given do not correspond to statistical data - deliberate misinformation. That is why you are invited to create a separate branch in which those who wish will discuss the information you have posted.
In this case no one will step on anyone's toes - everyone is happy, everyone is laughing.
Perhaps from your vantage point the object in question is seen differently than from mine. And conversely, it's possible that from my position I don't see what you see. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?
Likewise
OK, we've dealt with the special case. Now the second problem, namely the generalised formulation:
Betting systems with non-negative expectation
Let there be two mutually exclusive events A and B with corresponding probabilities: p(A) = 1 - p(B).The rules of the game: if a player bets on an event and that event falls, his winnings are equal to the bet. If the event does not fall, his loss equals his bet.
Our player bets using the following system:
The first or any other odd bet is always on event A. All odd bets are always equal in size, e.g. 1 ruble.
The second or any other odd bet:
- If the previous odd bet is won, the next even bet is increased by x times where x is greater than the odd bet, and placed on event A
- If the previous odd bet is lost, the next even bet increases y = f(x) times, and is placed on event B
Problem: Find a function for y = f(x) such that expectation for any p(A) in acceptable range from p(A) = 0 to p(A) = 1 is non-negative and the condition that expectation for p(A) = x is equal to expectation for p(A) = 1 - x is satisfied.
There are no volunteers? Then I give you the ready answer: y = x + 2
If this also applies to the MO of profit per trade for the TS at a constant lot, then I'll remember your suggestion just in case :). Although most likely it will be almost impossible to prove such a thing, no matter what test results show.
To prove such a thing will be necessary, precisely because the test and even the real do not mean anything.
Go to a bourgeois job search server and look for openings for candidates at hedge funds: the minimum requirement is a doctorate. These are the kind of people you have to deal with.
I'll stay here and keep making scholarly comments on your illiterate nonsense, lest anyone take you seriously.
Timbo, you are at least (deleted at the request of the moderator), ragging on in your scholarly comments.
I merely proved an elementary thing, namely that if there are two mutually exclusive and non-"memory" events A and B (where probabilities p(A) = 1 - p(B) = Const), then the total probability of two consecutive combinations of these events AB + BA can under no circumstances be more than 1/2, i.e. it cannot exceed 0.5, but can go down to 0. While the total probability of the remaining two combinations, i.e. AA and BB can be in the range 1/2 to 1. That is, if we bet on these very combinations, we can consider that the combinations AB and BA have a saddle maximum probability limit from above, while the combinations AA and BB have a saddle minimum limit from below.
0 <= p(AB) + p(BA) <= 0.5
0.5 <= p(AA) + p(BB) <= 1
I'm not selling or selling anything to anyone, and certainly not even offering to use it anywhere for selfish or disinterested purposes. Whoever understands what the point is, let him do it.
I have merely proved an elementary thing, namely that if there are two mutually exclusive and non-"memory" events A and B (where probabilities p(A) = 1 - p(B) = Const), then the total probability of two consecutive combinations of these events AB + BA can under no circumstances be more than 1/2, i.e. it cannot exceed 0.5, but can go down to 0. While the total probability of the remaining two combinations, i.e. AA and BB can be in the range 1/2 to 1. That is, if we bet on these very combinations, we can consider that the combinations AB and BA have a saddle maximum probability limit from above, while the combinations AA and BB have a saddle minimum limit from below.
0 <= p(AB) + p(BA) <= 0.5
0.5 <= p(AA) + p(BB) <= 1
I'm not trying to sell or sell anything, and I'm not even offering to use it for selfish or disinterested purposes. Whoever knows what's in it, let him do it.
You have proven an elementary thing, namely that if event A has a higher probability, then it has a higher probability. That's it. Such is the tautology.
Naturally, if A has a probability of p>0.5, then the probability of event AA is higher than any other event. I'll tell you more, I'll give you the secret knowledge: if p>0.71, then the probability of the event AA is higher than the sum of all the other events combined.
And you don't suggest using it because it can't be used anywhere. Keep on "surprising"...
You have proved an elementary thing, which is that if event A has a higher probability, then it has a higher probability. That's it. Such is the tautology.
Naturally, if A has a probability p>0.5, then the probability of event AA is higher than any other event. I'll tell you more, I'll tell you a secret knowledge: if p>0.71, then the probability of the event AA is higher than the sum of all the other events combined.
And you don't suggest using it because it can't be used anywhere. Keep on "surprising"...
Well, it's understandable that you're just trying to bullshit your opponent.
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.