The championship: how the leaders opened - page 4
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
Stats:
Total number of trades - 408.
Profitable - 269.
Losses are 139.
However, independent analysis shows that expectation of a profit in pips is nearly equal to that of a loss (about 30 points). And the chances of an abizen to do the same are extremely small. That's why I insist that with a high probability Better is human.
P.S. Pardon, more strictly: considering that abizian transactions obey a Bernoulli scheme with p=0.5 (SL=TP), at significance level such-and-such the hypothesis H0 = "Better is an abizian" is not supported. If interested, I can specify the significance level - but it is definitely very low, in the region of thousandths of a unit. And interestingly enough, Better is one of the few participants in both past Ch's about whom you can say that with exactly that level of significance. I did not check the fastest, although they should also be checked for the purity of the experiment.
Moreover, independent analysis shows that expectation of a profit in pips is approximately equal to that of a loss-making one (about 30 points). And the chances of an abyssal monkey to do the same are extremely small. That's why I insist that with high probability Better is human.
The question was phrased somewhat inaccurately, it often is. The Monkey Championship does not say anything about Batter personally, the Monkey Championship says that the winner of the 2007 human championship might just have been a lucky monkey.
To prove that the Bettor is human he only needs to repeat his result one more time or give a profit for a significant period of time, and he seems to have already done so. The probability of winning a big score for a monkey is 0.003333. The probability of the same monkey making a significant profit twice is 0.00333^2. That is, it can only happen in a championship for almost half a million monkeys.
Statistics:
Total number of trades - 408.
Profitable - 269.
Losses are 139.
However, independent analysis shows that expectation of a profit in pips is nearly equal to that of a loss (about 30 points). The chances of an Abizian to do the same are extremely small. Therefore, I insist that with high probability Better is human.
P.S. Pardon, more strictly: assuming that abizian transactions obey a Bernoulli scheme with p=0.5 (SL=TP), at significance level such-and-such the hypothesis H0 = "Better is abizian" is not supported. If interested, I can specify the significance level - but it is definitely very low, in the region of thousandths of a unit. And interestingly enough, Better is one of the few participants in both past Ch's about whom you can say that with exactly that level of significance. I haven't checked the fastest ones, though they should be also checked for the sake of purity of the experiment.
The monkey's trades tend towards Bernal when the number of trades gets to infinity, but that does not mean that a particular monkey will have exactly a 0.5 trade ratio. Here is the report of the champion monkey:
Bettor has 269/408=66% profitable trades, while the monkey has 60%. Is the batter a monkey? Probably not, as he has significantly more trades. Although the issue with the number of deals is ambiguous, as humans had a limit of 3 deals of 5 lots, for monkeys there were simplified rules - one deal of up to 15 lots. That is, if the monkeys had a MM which opens 3 trades of equal lots each, then the number of trades for the champion monkey would be 240.
Then the CI ratio of profitable trades for the monkey would be(0.5369,0.6599) and for the bettor (0.612,0.7036) at the 95% level of significance. They overlap, which means based on this parameter we cannot say that the Bettor is not a monkey.
Online calculator http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/VassarStats.html
timbo is super!!!
Two rounds (or more) should be the best round. Three months is the qualifying round. Three months - the championship round. And lot ceiling, preferably removed, as it is the ceiling that saves the abezgans who won the starting lottery from the inevitable ruin.
As for the maths, there's not much need to bother with lab experiments on monkeys. If I launch my Expert Advisors to the Championship, I can earn 100% with one of them a little less than IKS*Start-up deposit. That's why we need to run the Championship in several rounds. All the monkeys will be eliminated.
Two rounds (or more) should be the best round. Three months is the qualifying round. Three months - the championship round. And the lot ceiling, preferably removed, as it is this ceiling that saves abezgans who won the starting lottery from inevitable ruin.
Exactly to the contrary. The lottery ceiling prevents monkeys from going into space. If there is no limit, just five to ten successful trades at most and you can go into hibernation. No human will be able to catch up with that result. If there is no lot limitation, and the maximum stop/stake is increased to 200 (in the first Monkey Championship it was 100), the champion monkey makes only 29 deals and makes $873 thousand.
Anything that forces participants to increase the number of deals plays against the monkeys.
Yes, that's creative. If indeed there are those willing, I will gladly assist with contacts at the World Wildlife Fund, where I had the great pleasure of working. All that remains is to figure out how much money to collect prize money from the winners.
The prize fund is made up of the same money as today, when the participants pay nothing.
I.e. nothing changes for the Metakvots, except an additional check of the participants' list against the list received from the fund with the names of those who have made voluntary donations (reducing their tax base, by the way) to the fund supporting the good cause.
There's an idea that's appealing in its novelty. Obviously, there is no reason for the Metakvots to bother with participation fees, they have neither the desire nor the capacity to do so. But there are organisations for whom this is a daily routine - charitable foundations. For example, they choose "Wildlife Fund" (of course, it is a Bourgeois fund), the potential participant transfers there a certain fee and then the fund sends a list of "sponsors" to Metakvotam. And the risk is lowered and nature is saved.
- That's ingenious! A standing ovation!
---------------
It follows from the terver that monkeys can be distinguished from humans by the number of trades.
The higher the number of trades, the higher the probability that it is a person. 100% probability
can only be at infinity.
If you normalize the number of trades in the timbo championship by the number of trades of the current leader.
real championship, then the monkeys will probably fall away quickly, if of course people make frequent
making trades.
To normalize the number of deals, one may either vary the TP and SL limits, or force closure by time - though it is not very clear because of the suitability condition
up to 3 trades at a time .