Optimal strategy under statistical uncertainty - unsteady markets - page 11
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
You didn't solve the problem stated at the beginning, you told us about the solution to another problem. You don't need to make anything up, the condition says it all.
I quote,
"Under the terms, it is necessary to create a profit betting system, which does not allow to calculate statistically the advantage of one side of the coin, and therefore, its algorithm must be built on the knowledge of only two parameters:
1. The number of the next flip.
2. The side of the coin which was struck on the previous flip."
i.e. it is clearly stated which conditions are to be used. You don't have that.
Quote,
"According to the conditions, it is necessary to create a profitable betting system, which does not allow to calculate statistically the advantage of one of the sides of the coin, and therefore, its algorithm should be built on the knowledge of only two parameters:
1. The number of the next flip.
2. The side of the coin which was struck on the previous flip."
i.e. it is clearly stated which conditions are to be used. You don't have that.
I quote:
No one forbids any bet within the deposit on any side of the coin with any frequency or skip betting.
So the amount of deposit before each bet is known. That's the information available. And using a coin's flip side is as easy as adding a redundant condition: if the preceding side is tails, then the size of the bet on tails for example doubles from the calculated fraction. It is the same for heads.
If the problem is solved without analyzing the previous result, it is a redundancy, not a wrong solution.
quote:
No one forbids any bet within the deposit on either side of the coin with any frequency or skip betting.
So the amount of deposit before each bet is known. That's the information available. And using the dropped side of the coin is as easy as adding a redundant condition: if previous tails, then the size of the bet on tails e.g. double from the calculated fraction.
Wrong, the conditions are formulated, there are only two, and they need to be used. You didn't use them.
And using the flip side of a coin is as easy as adding a redundant condition: if the preceding tails, then the size of the bet on tails for example doubles the calculated fraction.
It's not redundant, it's the main condition. And there is no need to bring in doubling here.
If the problem is solved without analyzing the previous result, it means the redundancy condition, not the wrong solution.
So your solution doesn't meet the conditions of the problem.
Wrong, the conditions are formulated, there are only two, and they have to be used. You have not used them.
It's not redundant, it's the main condition. And there is no need to bring in doubling.
So your solution doesn't meet the conditions of the problem.
Even schoolchildren know what redundant and incomplete conditions are)))
You may cite where it is written that if the problem is solved without using some of its conditions, then it has been solved incorrectly or another problem has been solved. Or is this your speculation?
I can give you some advice - don't respond in any way. There are a few trolls on this forum who, no matter how much proof you give them, even links and citations to any credible sources, they will still violently defend only their own point of view.
That is, if someone is talking outright rubbish, or after a reasonable response continues to stick to their beliefs only, then he must simply ignore and do not communicate. The purpose of a troll is to publicly defend only a personal point of view, no matter how much it contradicts reality. And ignoring forces trolls to make sure that he has no audience - his rubbish is in vain, because nobody pays attention and go to other forums to find interlocutors and spew their rubbish.
You're right, Reshetov. You're right.
You're right, Reshetov. You're right.
Yeah, he's right about that. When some people don't have an argument, they start talking rubbish ;)