Simulate the situation. If 1,000 people were forced to trade amongst themselves, how would the graph behave? - page 19

New comment
 
Andrey Dik:

Is Muller an authority for you to quote him? Muller who is Heinrich, not Adam, August or Arthur.

A lot of the popular expressions in the film "17 Moments of Spring" were left behind

Some of them are just for fun.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:

a lot of catchphrases were left by the film 17 Moments of Spring

some of them are used for fun, by the way.

I understand that "for fun", but it's one thing to quote Stirlitz for fun and another to quote Mueller (both are, like, Germans), you won't educate children on Mueller's quotes, right?))

 
Andrey Dik:

It's understandable that "for fun", but it's one thing to quote Stirlitz for fun and another to quote Muller (both are, like, Germans), you won't educate children "for fun" on Muller's quotes, right?)))

Stirlitz was kind of a spy, kind of a Russian ;)

Both were not fools, but they had different aims.

However, it is better to read fairy tales to children; they will tell you the rest at school ;)

 
I remember an incident in my youth. Four of us decided to play cards, a game of point. There was no money, so we decided to play for matches, there were 100 boxes of them, and we divided them up into 25 boxes per person. They played all night and by morning one person had all the matches. This is the way it should be in such an experiment. If 1000 people play for a long time, eventually the money will go to one player. A similar thing happens when playing Monopoly or Money Stream.
 
Renat Akhtyamov:

Stirlitz is kind of a spy, kind of a Russian ;)

Both were not fools, but they had different goals.

However, children are better off reading fairy tales, they will be told the rest at school ;)

Right, but the person quoting someone will be associated with the quoted character, so I asked him if he would like to associate with Mueller? neural connections in the brain are tricky things, Asulenko said something without thinking, and hundreds of millions of people who read the post have formed neural connections that clearly link Mueller to Asulenko, why would millions of people need these unnecessary neural connections? )))))) If Asulenko quotes Muller often enough, he could even change the story and replace Muller's character with himself, and the film would later be remade and the textbooks rewritten...)

 
Maxim Romanov:
I have already modelled it and even described it on paper. Not 1,000 people, of course, from 2 to 4 I tried, further it is difficult. I even wanted to make a model of the system on the computer, but I have not got round to it.
After researching various markets and a large number of instruments, various forex instruments, Russian and foreign shares, crypto, commodities, I came to the following conclusions.
The greater the number of participants, the more uniform the chart is, the smaller the spikes, the more stable the distribution, the smaller the amplitude. Ideally, with the infinite number of participants the distribution tends to be normal, the less the number of participants, the greater the outliers. The price is a way to redistribute the shares. It is also important how trades will be made, will they be random or will there be an algorithm for making decisions based on profit. In a long game with $100 and random decision making, at the end there will be 1 player who collects all the money. Everyone else will go bankrupt. If there is some other way of making decisions, there may be an outcome where everyone has the same amount of money. For example, if everyone has $100 then the game may not start at all, because everyone will agree on the value of the asset.

Great! Good post


 
Ivan Butko:

Great! Good post.


nothing is good...

How can the participants "come to a common opinion" when the participants cannot communicate as they do in the real market? of course, there is a possibility of collusion of a group of persons in the real market, but it is not equal to collusion with a limited number of participants in the experiment. the only sure way, 100%, to keep the dough in your pocket is not to trade, but who has stopped it so far? - because there is "chance" to win!

with infinite branching of decision making algorithm (separate algorithms of participants), general line, i.e. price of decisions, will tend to random walk, it is inevitable, since the goal of each participant is profit extraction, it is possible only when "eating" the remaining participants, but it is equal, fair, random (not transparent for participants and closed for participants in possibility to forecast) state..... though general descriptive process of all participants still is not a random walk, but it becomes inconsistent.


ZS. Elephants have long known that a human being is something soft and wet (a human being turns into a wet and soft when touched with a foot).

 
Andrey Dik:

nothing is good...

How can the participants "come to a common opinion" when the participants cannot communicate as they do in the real market? of course, there is a possibility of collusion of a group of persons in the real market, but it is not equal to collusion with a limited number of participants in the experiment. the only sure way, 100%, to keep the dough in your pocket is not to trade, but who has stopped it so far? - because there is "chance" to win!

with infinite branching of decision making algorithm (separate algorithms of participants), general line, i.e. price of decisions, will tend to random walk, it is inevitable, since the goal of each participant is profit extraction, it is possible only when "eating" the remaining participants, but it is equal, fair, random (not transparent for participants and closed for participants in possibility to forecast) state..... though general descriptive process of all participants still is not a random walk, but it becomes inconsistent.


ZS. Elephants have long known that man is something soft and wet (man turns into wet and soft when groping him with a foot).

People can communicate through the glass (it was proven a long time ago)). If everyone starts putting their bids on the same level, others will pull up too.
In the end, everyone will come to the same price.

 
Andrey Gladyshev:

People can communicate through the glass (it was proven a long time ago)). If everyone starts putting their bids on the same level, others will pull up too.
Eventually everyone will come to the same price.

if everyone starts bidding at the same price, there won't be anyone left who will buy back those bids.

However (c)

What will happen in this case?

let's assume that everyone is so smart that they stocked up on some asset.... they think, OK, they need to sell it to make some money. and I'll put it at this price to make it look good -.... the guys who have this asset also want to sell, so they put their bids at the same level... the "wall" is getting thicker.... and thicker. and all attempts to buy back this wall are failing, no more buyers.... the wall hasn't been completely bought out. the remaining sellers are starting to think "what the fuck, the wall is already thinning and my bids haven't been bought out yet, i'll just put it down a bit..." yeah, the buyers thought, and bought back the bid, but there are still sellers who couldn't sell everything and are also putting everything lower and lower in order to sell.... that's how the price starts to drop precipitously.... the opposite also happens when the price goes up.

It's the market, baby.

 
Andrey Dik:

if everyone starts bidding at the same price, there won't be anyone left who will buy back those bids.

However (c)

I mean the possibility of collective communication.

1...1213141516171819202122
New comment