Probability assessment is purely mathematical - page 8
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
By the way, "forex" has no more to do with "maturity" than the height of a solitary tree has to do with the volume of logging in Brazil
I totally agree. As for my mate expectation, I think so: the market is growing :)
That is, if two snipers want to shoot a terrorist. One shoots with a 0.6 probability, the other with a 0.3 probability. If they shoot at the same time, there's no chance the terrorist will be killed?
Man, these kinds of problems have long had bearded solutions, and you're still lobbing them around. Let the probability that the first sniper kills is p(a) = 0.6, let the probability that the second sniper kills is p(b) = 0.3. In this case it is necessary and sufficient that at least one shot of either sniper is fatal. Although both at once will also do. Then the probability of fatal outcome as a result of simultaneous firing of both snipers is equal:
p(lethal) = p(a) + p(b) - p(a)*p(b) = 0.72
Man, such problems have had bearded solutions for a long time, and you are still lambasting them. Let the probability that the first sniper will kill is p(a) = 0.6, let the probability that the second sniper will kill is p(b) = 0.3. In this case it is necessary and sufficient that at least one shot of either sniper is fatal. Although both at once will also do. Then the probability of fatal outcome as a result of simultaneous firing of both snipers is equal:
p(lethal) = p(a) + p(b) - p(a)*p(b) = 0.72
I see Reshetov is showing unprecedented humanity today
I see Reshetov is showing unprecedented humanity today.
And most importantly, not one word about botany!
P.S. About the squirrel and the bear cub... it seems that the problem is incorrect. Both bodies together change the initial conditions of the experiment, as the branch also comes into play.
Does that mean that you interpret market events as a random process? In that case - your trading with a negative mathematical expectation.
I am not essentially a cynic.
But if you offer a reasonable explanation for completely chaotic processes, then all is not yet lost ... (probably) :)
The price movement episode in M1 is the only real indicator that defines the whole haphazard price movement (up and down)
All the rest (higher TF) is nothing more than what we want to see in this mess. Wishful thinking is what you're calling for!
And as for the negative expectation, it's from the spread by default. Advantage, static advantage is always not on your side. By the way, in life too.
Price increases are a completely random process and all attempts to attach characteristic features to a movement, is nothing more than trading with the hope of success!
Price appreciation is a completely random process and all attempts to attach characteristic features to one or another movement are nothing more than hopeful trading!
Can you prove it? Not that I am a fan of asking for proof, but I have proof to the contrary.
But, as they say, I asked first. :)
PS. A little bit of proof will do the trick.
Can you prove it? Not that I'm a fan of asking for proof, but I have proof to the contrary.
But, as they say, I asked first. :)
PS. I'll take a little bit of proof.
And he does too, from the opposite direction )
And he has too, from the opposite direction ).
I'm interested in hearing any little semblance of proof that the market is a phenomenon of a random nature. Sylvuplet, eh. :)
I meant that his proof boils down to "I (non-veteran) didn't find it, so it's completely random