Simulate the situation. If 1,000 people were forced to trade amongst themselves, how would the graph behave? - page 20

New comment
 
Andrey Gladyshev:

I mean the possibility of collective communication.

There is no collective communication in the conventional sense. there is only a price that makes equal the mentally retarded and the highly intelligent, because the one who has earned is right and the one who has lost is wrong.

 
Andrey Dik:

how will participants "come to a consensus" when participants cannot communicate as they would in a real market?

I mean the purely technical probability of coming to a consensus. Of course no one is going to make the crowd think alike).

 
Andrey Gladyshev:

I mean the purely technical probability of coming to a consensus. Of course no one can make a crowd think alike).

Well, what am I saying? No one thinks alike, and yet everyone observes what happens after the fact (a consequence of rotten universal causality), it can't be otherwise.

hence the Universal Law of "everyone has the right to be wrong", this law is inherent in the general desire of the Universe to lose information, to equalise, devalue, smooth out, appease, calm, bliss, paradise.... ugh, the whole thing is a pissing match.

the only way to earn (or create, create, howl) is to create perturbations in the mass of striving for equilibrium... new stars, and elements of matter, are created only when perturbation occurs in an equilibrium medium, concentrating matter and energy and creating new entities, new matter, new structures, new formations... the same thing happens everywhere at any level, at the level of the universe, and at the level of stupid human market relations. create fluctuations, and there will be something to reap from the perturbations that grow from it.

,
 
Andrey Dik:

Well, what am I saying? No one thinks alike, and yet everyone observes what happens after the fact (this is a consequence of rotten universal causality), it cannot be otherwise.

hence the Universal Law of "everyone has the right to be wrong", this law is inherent in the general desire of the Universe to lose information, to equalise, devalue, smooth out, appease, calm, bliss, paradise.... ugh, the whole thing is a pissing match.

the only way to earn (or create, create, howl) is to create perturbations in the mass of striving for equilibrium... new stars, and elements of matter, are created only when perturbation occurs in an equilibrium environment, concentrating matter and energy and creating new entities, new matter, new structures, new formations... The same thing happens everywhere at any level, at the level of the universe and at the level of stupid human market relations. create fluctuations and there will be something to reap from the perturbations that arise from it.

,

This is spot on.

 
It remains to be seen which way they are trying to move the crowd.
 
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 is still 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 you touch him with your foot).

participants, if they are clever enough, can, after a certain number of iterations, calculate how many dollars everyone has, how much the asset exists in nature and how much it is really worth. In terms of theory it is possible to do this. Most probably the situation will be average, one part of the players will sell out, and the other part will have approximately the same amount of money and at a certain moment will stop trading. That is assuming that the participants are intelligent and play for maximum profit. But it is difficult to create such an algorithm, so I abandoned the idea.
 
There is also the capitalisation effect. Participants can deliberately increase the price of an asset in order to increase capitalisation. If they benefit from high capitalisation. For example, 2 participants can conspire to drive the price to inadequate heights and still have roughly equal amounts of money remaining with the asset, this is also possible, I have modelled it.
 

There's no way the schedule is going to behave. Just a point.

 
Analysis involves dividing into the smallest parts, followed by synthesis.

Therefore, it is not necessary to start with 1,000 people. It is enough to have 2, and then to include the rest and model in this way.
 
Aleksandr Yakovlev:

There's no way the schedule is going to behave. Just a point.

Yes, right decision!

What makes you think that the behavior of the crowd affects the price movement...?

It is not an axiom, but ONE of MANY possible outcomes...

If we consider that the crowd ALWAYS and ALWAYS lags behind the price movement, then we can draw conclusions - the crowd reaction is SECOND to the price movement...

1...13141516171819202122
New comment