On the unequal probability of a price move up or down - page 117
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
It's not even clear what the misconceptions are yet (triangle calculation can be problematic - I've already realised that from the heated discussion:)
There don't seem to be any complaints about the maths. There are skews because of zero, as a $1 share can go down by $0.99 and go up by $99.
The forex conclusions from the maths are let's just say debatable.
In any case, currencies do not change by 0.3(~30%) in the intraday interval. They change by 100 pps (~1%) at most, so the skewness will be 1% squared 0.01%.
I think the skewness topic is closed then.
Perhaps the author reinforces this %% with artificial pairs and tries to use it...
It's clear from the TS that there are limitations and lotsi are possible. I need the statistics for 20 trades or more. And a good idea is to use the somatic walkthrough in the tester at least for a year.
Further (why I'm reading this thread) perhaps due to multicurrency (all major or 7 other linearly independent pairs of 28) something interesting may be obtained.
Chances of success - well, let's say 50/50%:)
The truth doesn't stop being the truth if it's told by a brainless bum kid sitting in a puddle of his own piss under a fence )
How self-critical of you.
The truth doesn't stop being the truth if it's told by a brainless homeless kid sitting in a puddle of his own piss under a fence ) That's your problem )
ahahaha
i can only sympathize
This is why you are "leveraged", so that a 0.1% change can lead to a loss of equity or a multiple of it. In this sense, there is no difference with the stock market, because by varying the leverage and the volume of transactions you can arrange any desired risk management.
How self-creative of you.
ahaha
I can only sympathize.
I knew there would be no objection to the truth (c)
Therefore, you are "leveraged", so a change of 0.1% will cause a withdrawal or a multiple of it. In this sense, there is no difference with the stock market, because by varying the leverage and transaction volume you can arrange any desired risk (money) management.
The leverage does not change the currency pair charts in the end.
How do you arrange for more skewed probabilities with the same small delta in the numerator and denominator? Well, or with equal probability, a skew in the movements of two different deltas.
I don't quite understand the question.
I didn't quite understand the question.
With a delta of ~1% of ED in the numerator and denominator EP the skewness is extremely small. (ED+0.01)/(PD+0.01) to(ED-0.01)/(PD-0.01) is less than a point.
I had the assumption that the artificial EN and PN pairs are created to "amplify" it, well, or something else useful.
With a delta of ~1% of ED in the numerator and denominator EP the skewness is extremely small. (ED+0.01)/(PD+0.01) to(ED-0.01)/(PD-0.01) is less than a point.
I had an assumption that the artificial EN and PN pairs were created to "amplify" it, well, or something else useful.
No, the philosophies on the first page were only intended to show that the probabilities for the price to go down and up cannot be equal to 50%, because that would mean that the market would be inefficient (the appearance of an opportunity to make a profit).
The same page shows that when correctly evaluated, that is taking into account the change in the value of a pip during an up or down move, everything is closed in such a way that equal during an up or down move of the price by a predetermined value (for example, by 100 pips) is not a probability at all, but profit and loss (modulo, without taking into account spreads/swaps/slippages, etc.).
You cannot trade the skewed probabilities described on the first page, and there and the line above describes why. That is, you can trade but you can't make a profit.
Further is based on games with coordinate transformations, but it has nothing to do with exactly reasoning about the inequality of probabilities to go up or down.