Random wandering - page 9

New comment
 
Is Alexander rampaging on the forum under a different nickname again, demanding to "cram what you can't cram"?
 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

One cannot make money on SB in the sense that the average profit (its expectation) will be zero. If we take any fixed trading system with a fixed set of parameters and run it through a large number of SB realizations, the resulting set of final profits will have a near-zero average. When spread and commissions are taken into account, the average profit will be negative.

The trick of "earning" on SB is usually shown by fitting the system algorithm or its parameters to each specific realization of SB. In essence, this results in trading with an eye to the future, which is completely impossible in real trading.

This is logical:

If someone claims there is no earning in SB and someone claims there is earning in Forex, then Forex is different from SB. But Then:

If there is no earning on SB and forex is different from SB, then it means that there is earning on forex. But Then:

If earnings are present on forex, but a group of people, instead of earning on forex, are discussing earning on SB, which is absent,

then what can we say about this group of people?

 
zvezdocheet:

It makes sense:

If someone claims there is no earning on SB and someone else claims there is earning on forex, then forex is different from SB. But Then:

If there is no earning on SB and forex is different from SB, then it means that there is earning on forex. But Then:

If earnings are present on forex, but a group of people, instead of earning on forex, are discussing earning on SB, which is absent,

then what can you say about this group of people?

Very crooked logic.

 
zvezdocheet:

It makes sense:

If someone claims there is no earning on SB and someone else claims there is earning on Forex, then Forex is different from SB. But Then:

If there is no earning on SB and forex is different from SB, then it means that there is earning on forex. But Then:

If earnings are present on forex, but a group of people, instead of earning on forex, are discussing earning on SB, which is absent,

then what can we say about this group of people?

That they once again registered for a month-long trading contest on demo accounts and once again lost the contest account early.

And now they have nothing to do again until the next contest.

 
ILYA_365:

I want a constructive analysis of the information I have linked to here. With arguments and logic.

A_K, re-login)
 
zvezdocheet:

It makes sense:

If someone claims there is no earning on SB and someone else claims there is earning on Forex, then Forex is different from SB. But Then:

If there is no earning on SB and forex is different from SB, then it means that there is earning on forex. But Then:

If earnings are present on forex, but a group of people, instead of earning on forex, are discussing earning on SB, which is absent,

then what can be said about this group of people?

The difference of SB from Forex and possibility to earn on Forex does not necessarily mean earnings on Forex - if trades are opened in wrong direction, then losses (on average) can be much bigger than on SB (on average - spread and commission).

This leads to a high cost of error, which leads to high psychological stress in any type of trading. This tension can be relieved by idle talk on all sorts of near-market topics.

Thus, talking about SB trading does not replace real trading, but serves as a way to relax in between)

 
Dmytryi Nazarchuk:

That they registered again for the month-long demo trading competition and again lost the competition account prematurely.

And now they have nothing to do again until the next contest.

But the main thing is to promote the DT organizing these contests just before the beginning of the new month)

 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

But the main thing is to promote the brokerage house that organises these contests just before the new month)

Nah, he even wiped his own posts on his profile -....

 
As they write on the internet (and he has to be believed):
Случайное блуждание- a mathematical object known as a stochastic orrandom process, which describes a path consisting of a sequenceof randomsteps in some mathematical space(e.g. on a set ofintegers).

However, it is very important to define what kind of space we are dealing with. When we try to transfer results or logic of a model with one metric to another metric, it is not always correct.
For example, Doctor's suggestion about the indicator

Imagine that you are in a casino, playing roulette. Look at the outcomes and draw a stock chart from left to right: black falls - the line on one division down, red falls - the line on one division up. Is it possible to apply a certain indicator to this chart and start robbing the casino?

In forex, we don't end the game on the next tick, but continue to wait for barriers to be reached in the form of T/P or S/L.

It seems to me that specifying what type of straying is being discussed would bring more constructiveness. I refer to those debaters who each see a "different" wander - from the traditional Gaussian SB in financial circles to the two-dimensional case.

To visualise the two-dimensional case, one can imagine a person casually walking around a city. This city is virtually infinite and arranged in a square grid of pavements. At each intersection, the person randomly chooses one of four possible routes (including the one he came by). Formally, it is a random wandering through the set of all points inthe plane withintegercoordinates.

Will this person ever return to the starting point of the rambling?

In 1921György Poyaproved that the personwillalmost certainlyreturn in a two dimensional random walk, but for three dimensions or more, the probability of return decreases with increasing number of dimensions.

 
Mikhail Dovbakh:

Imagine "a person walking around a city made up entirely of T-junctions" and don't worry about it.

12345678910111213141516...58
New comment