Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 16
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
and the market... the market is no less subject to statistics than any other phenomenon.
Why do you give up in advance, why do you think the terver can't be supplemented?
We have to go to ground, all is lost? All opened up before us?
Balls and urn
h ttp://dxdy.ru/topic58199.html
I don't see anyone really trying to get into it.
ok
You come to the field of miracles, and Yakubovich is wiggling in front of you and says - here are 20 (twenty) boxes. According to MathRand(), there's money in them.
And then, boom, David Blaine shows up, takes you back 5 minutes, and you see that 19 boxes are empty.
Honestly, it's random. Honestly, it's random. You don't know about one box.
what about the probability? in the case of the three boxes, by changing your choice, you increase the odds, and here how? is there a chance to still get the money, or you will not even try? :-))
I'm trying to talk about the probabilities in a series, but all I keep getting is the probability of one(!) Last spin.
I'm trying to ask why everyone believes in the Fibo numbers (without proof, purely by statistics). Let's also add the number 3.14 - the Earth is round, so markets rotate on it. divide it by two or by four, we obtain nice ratios, and believe in them.
why does everyone flatly refuse to admit that according to the same statistics series have (in each area) a practical limit. Yes, there is a probability that a meteorite will hit the earth, a couple will be withdrawn from bidding, etc. - but why should we consider it, even theoretically? as dr. Howes said - if the diagnosis is that the patient will die - we are not interested in such a diagnosis, we are looking for another.
Further, I kept expecting sane mathematicians here, but here every other pando-trolls who can shit and can not think, even in a joking tone.
Let's imagine for a moment that a coin has a memory for exactly one spin (more precisely, let's assume that randomness is a change of previous state to any other possible). And from this point of view let's reconsider the theory. :-) or can we copy formulas developed by someone else?
Probability estimation - pure mathematics
Good thread, Neveteran uses probabilities there and trades profitably on a multi-currency basis regardless of direction.
It's very simple here. You need to make money in the market, not improve the terrier. The second point is that the chances of an improved terver helping to make money are very slim, about the same as meeting a dinosaur.
Hmm... I think you're talking about a dinosaur.
there are trends and flat - i hope there are no disagreements with that
they usually alternate (or change)
During a flat, the market builds up potential, and during a trend it realizes it.
Let's assume that there is a statistically stable value that (having a certain accuracy) signals that the market starts to accumulate energy.
in fact - it is a flat, but not so obvious to other indicators (it is obvious only from the point of view of this very value - indicators are usually a derivative of the price).
why not use it? markets are equilibrium or tend to be so. in this sense, the theory works out fine.
it means that as soon as the flat value is exceeded, a trend may very probably be expected.
why not use it?
as I've said before - the market has certain limitations due to various factors.
So it means that we are unlikely to get two hundred in a pair (and if we do - then we (the world) will be screwed without the market).
Lewis Carroll's challenge
Thank you, but that would be more useful to popeyezhu(a) :-)
during a flat, the market builds up potential, during a trend it realizes it. isn't that right?
what is the potential? what is the potential?
price is not a physical object
Thanks, but that's more likely to be useful to popeyezhu(a) :-)
I am also very interested in the topic. Not me with my advice of course but don't pay attention to such chatterboxes. You see that this thread just drowns in floods, do not respond to their posts and all ...
Now, everyone is probably familiar with both the reel and the task.
So has anyone checked with statistics, separately win/loss for
1- if you change the solution after the first door.
2- if you don't change the solution after the first door is opened
So, if I am not a paleontologist and know nothing about paleontology, then for me the probability of going out and meeting a living dinosaur = 0.5? Get over it.
This probability is the same for all people, regardless of their degree of awareness of palaeontology, and it is not 0.5 at all. This is an example of a "false" probability.
This is an example of you being sure of the existence of some "in fact", absolute truth. But the problem is that even if it exists, it is fundamentally unknowable. So there is no "right", "in-the-fact" probability in reality either. It is different for everyone. To get the absolute one, strictly speaking, we have to look at the universe from the outside, stop being part of it - then it would become a closed system relative to us, and hence it would become fully cognisable.
A simple example: what is the probability of walking outside today and encountering a rodent? I'll tell you right away that I sometimes call a gryndlick a bird, and sometimes a dinosaur, depending on my mood. I won't say which one today (or maybe I haven't decided at all yet). And until I give you this information, the probability of meeting a gryndlik for you is very close to 0.5, you can be convinced by a simple calculation. And the only reason for that is that you know almost nothing about gryndliks.
This is an example of you being sure of the existence of some "really", absolute truth. But the problem is that even if it exists, it is fundamentally unknowable. So there is no "right", "in-the-fact" probability in reality either. It is different for everyone. To get the absolute one, strictly speaking, we have to look at the universe from the outside, stop being part of it - then it would become a closed system relative to us, and consequently, it would become fully cognisable.
A simple example: how likely is it that if you go out today, you will meet a herndlik? Let me say right away that I sometimes call a grindlik a bird, and sometimes a dinosaur, depending on my mood. I won't say which one today (or maybe I haven't decided at all yet). And until I give you this information, the probability of meeting a gryndlik for you is very close to 0.5, you can be convinced by a simple calculation. And the only reason for that is that you know almost nothing about gryndliks.
I've already answered that - reread it. What you write is philology, psychology, etc. It has nothing to do with theorists.