Probability assessment is purely mathematical - page 14
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 am going to put in my own penny. I will not give a general proof, I will demonstrate a simple experience. We take an arbitrary point in time and calculate the distribution of increments, for example, for 10 minutes (we are on M1). It is not exactly symmetric, it is influence of a global trend for the analyzed period.
In the upper left corner, integrals for the positive and negative halves of the distribution are given, they are 0.503 and 0.497.
Now, we will complicate the condition and take increments only if the price moved minus 5 points during the previous 10 min. It turns out that this condition significantly deforms distribution. I will not show any pictures; the integrals become 0.5135 and 0.4865. That is, the probability of a positive move has become higher.
If we set not -5 but +5, we obtain 0.4439 and 0.5561, now the probability of negative movement has increased (much more significant).
In other words, we can clearly see the effect called market reversion.
Alas, a simple calculation shows that even 1 old point spread completely kills this effect, i.e. makes it unusable for making profit.
What is the purpose of this exercise? You can muddy the water in the basin for a long time, but why?
In a stationary market, yes. In a stationary section of a non-stationary market, yes.
That is, it is demanding that the market stay within your hypothesis... :)
Could you introduce us to the procedure of identifying the boundaries of stationary market areas and estimating the probability of their stationarity in the future?
What is the purpose of this exercise? You can muddy the water in the basin for a long time, but why?
That is, it is demanding that the market stay within your hypothesis... :)
Could you introduce us to the procedure for identifying the boundaries of stationary market areas and estimating the probability of their stationarity in the future?
Let's not be foolhardy. Unless you have at least a bad model of the market, you cannot ask questions about the forecast and the credibility of that forecast at all. Once you have a model, you can improve it, which is what happens. Alternatively, you can pound water in a hat, either calculating some statistics or demonstrating your education, or vice versa.
Your question stumped me :). It reminds me of Prostokvashino, Uncle Fyodor, Matroskin the Cat, etc. Of course, if you need money, there's nothing to think about - you just have to go and dig up the treasure. :)
I can repeat FreeLance's answer
That is, it is demanding that the market stay within your hypothesis...
There is no other way of knowing. a hypothesis is put forward and then tested. Euclid, suggested that parallel ones do not intersect and we still live within this wrong hypothesis and will always use it on our vegetable gardens.
Portfolio holders still believe in the normality of the market and are not bad at managing risk. True until the market turns around.
Let's not be foolish. Until you have at least a bad model of the market, you can't ask questions of prognosis and confidence in that prognosis at all. If you have a model, you can improve it, which is exactly what is happening. Or you can waffle on, either calculating some statistics or demonstrating your education or vice versa.
These words very accurately reflect your level of preparation for the discussion.
In a neighbouring thread you amaze me with your desire to discover the same frequencies in spectral analysis of the "original" and "twice as shortened" series, and here you continue your boorish profanity...
(:
There is no other way of knowing. one puts forward a hypothesis and then tests it. Euclid, assumed that parallel ones do not intersect and we still live within this wrong hypothesis and will always use it in our vegetable gardens.
Portfolio holders still believe in the normality of the market and are not bad at managing risk. True until the market reverses.
Do you understand the difference between an axiom, a postulate and a hypothesis?
And the non-acceptance of Euclid's fifth postulate is a step beyond perceived reality, and on our own vegetable garden it is hardly possible for us. :)
These words very accurately reflect the level of your preparation for the discussion.
In a neighbouring thread you amaze me with your desire to discover the same frequencies in spectral analysis of the "original" and "halved" series, and here you continue your boorish profanity ...
(:
The answer is there. I'm arguing the opposite, which is what you're attributing to me.
These words very accurately reflect your level of preparation for the discussion.
In a neighbouring thread you amaze me with your desire to discover the same frequencies in spectral analysis of the "original" and "halved" series, and here you continue your boorish profanity ...
(:
If I may, on the merits of the post.