Is martin so bad? Or do you have to know how to cook it? - page 48
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
I found some interesting information in wikipedia for the problem of player's ruin:
cf. The paradox of increased stakes in unfavourable play, The challenge of player ruin
I only quote the conclusions:
So if the probability of the first player's desired overturn is less than 0.5, he benefits from increasing his stake by r > 1: it decreases the probability of his terminal ruin due to the growing probability of jumping out of the pass in point B. This solution seems paradoxical because one gets the impression that in the adverse situation one should lower the stake and decrease the loss, but in fact with infinite number of games and low stake the losing player is sure to end up losing to zero and the player with higher stakes in the end.
I found some interesting information in wikipedia for the player ruin problem:
cf. The paradox of increased stakes in unfavourable play, The challenge of player ruin
I only quote the conclusions:
So if the probability of the first player's desired overturn is less than 0.5, it is profitable for him to increase the bet by r > 1 time: it decreases the probability of his terminal ruin due to the increasing probability of jumping out of the corridor in point B. This solution seems paradoxical, because the impression is that in an unfavourable situation one should decrease the stake and decrease the loss, but in fact with infinite number of games and low stake the losing player is sure to end up losing zero, and the player with higher stake will end up with a loss.
Good example, supported by mathematical proof))
It works true in practice, but this is the first time I've seen such a mathematical proof.
A really paradoxical proof for most who are against averaging or martingale.
You just have to understand that we're not all at a communist construction site here, we're playing a zero-sum game, even a negative one. Which means that all the normal guys are going to be fighting each other. That's why the most profitable MM is being shouted down.
I first wanted to justify mathematically proving the correctness of Martingale, but then I thought, why do I need it? It is not profitable for me, I'd rather everyone do the opposite.
Almost everything is paradoxical in trading, you should play against the crowd, and if you lose, you should average and raise rates... Everything depends on confidence in your actions. Who is more confident and goes to the end, he steals the jackpot, and who panics and reduces the lot that becomes meat.
There is a whole industry working to demoralise and ridicule the right approach.
I first wanted to justify the mathematical proof of Martingale, but then I thought, why should I?
The mathematical proof of the fidelity of the martin game is provided by..... I understand..... a few posts above.
Thank you very much Reshetovu))
Everything else is BLEF, nothing more.
Mathematical proof of the fidelity of the game of martin provided
)))) Is your head all right?
NO. In your mind, but you won't understand it, because of your limitations.
I have long since moved to another level of consciousness.
I repeat once again, I am from Novosibirsk, from Akademgorodok, you may consider me not quite normal, I understand you perfectly.
And I want to thank you separately for the pleasant conversation))
)))) are you all right in the head?
OK )) go back to your juice. At least give Reshetov some money for his phone )) as a thank you.