Brain-training tasks related to trading in one way or another. Theorist, game theory, etc. - page 3
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 is not clear what is the main idea here. When p = 0.5 we have 0 expectation. And when p is greater than 0.5, we have a constant trend, on it we will win with any betting system, with or without martingale. If we determine the trend correctly of course :)
I totally agree.
p.s. I think it is necessary to consider not the probability of this or that event, but the probability of making a profitable trade (and then again, but taking into account the spread). And to conclude that it's not about MM, because no MM can take out a losing system.
The script has been running for an hour...
You, Yura, have an even longer proof :)
All right, what's there to argue about. We just gave two proofs. I do not see any mistakes in mine.
Of course, this result is hardly applicable to trading: for any final deposit it is possible to have a losing series, which will wipe out the deposit.
The task allows a lot of generalizations. In particular, I do not exclude the case when the final expression for m.o. of a trade will not necessarily be a non-negative function on the whole p-axis, but will be such at "natural" p - from 0 to 1.
It's not clear what the twist is here. At p = 0.5 we have expectation 0. And when it is different from 0.5, we have a constant trend, on it we will win with any betting system, with or without martingale. If we determine the trend correctly of course :)
That's the trick, that with martingale, if we determine the trend incorrectly, we will lose, and moreover, with the accumulation of losses at 2^x - 1 time with each lost bet. And in this betting system it does not matter which way the trend is going, because in any direction the MO will be positive. In a sideways trend it will be a loss. In a torn sidewall, i.e. when channels constantly change their borders, we can stay with ours when series AA, AB, BA and BB are equally likely, or the loss will be small.
You, Yura, have an even longer proof :)
But it's more consistent. I mean, it's easier to understand. But that's my opinion. Proofs of Pythagoras' theorem are also a ton, but the most lucid is "Pythagoras' trousers", although it is not the most succinct presentation.
For your shenanigans, even a stake-minus would be too high a theorist grade.
Nerdiness in the form of an endless game is not an option. Our lives are limited in time.
Besides there is a proof of losing with limited capital for eagle player only when the probability of winning is less than 0.5 and only when the game is played against a player with infinite capital. In other cases the player with finite capital may lose or double, triple, quadruple, and so on.
Learn the basics - it's tame.Exactly, learn the math - the problem of player busting considers the situation with a probability of 0.5, i.e. a perfectly fair game against the casino, whose funds are of course unlimited. Drainage is guaranteed.
I've been rated by smarter people than you, so be modest.
That's the thing about martingale, if we get the trend wrong, we will lose, and the losses will increase by 2^x - 1 time with every lost bet. And in this betting system it does not matter which way the trend is going, because in any direction the MO will be positive. In a sideways trend it will be a loss. In a torn sidewall, i.e. when channels constantly change their borders, we can stay with ours when series AA, AB, BA and BB are equally likely, or the loss will be small.
For the original (ideal) formulation of the problem this is so. But in reality (as many have written above) the key factors are the spread and the finiteness of the capital. In this sense, as a next step towards reality, it would be interesting to include a commission in the form of a fixed fraction of the rate. The question may be: how much p should it be different from 0.5 for the given commission to ensure positive mathematical expectation?
Finite capital is secondary here, I think many people would play this game with pleasure, if the probability of winning (taking into account the spread) were larger than 0.5. True, in that case we would have a much smaller brokerage house :). But it would be possible to play on the team, for example, us against the Americans :). But here we must consider the factor of initial capital. Because they have more initial capital, they will most probably win all their money back from us :).
That's right, learn the math - the player-versus-player problem looks at a 0.5 probability, i.e. perfectly fair play against a casino whose funds are of course unlimited. Drainage is guaranteed.
I've been rated by smarter people than you, so don't be so modest.
Boy, write it on your forehead:
1. Casino funds are limited.
2. Betting sizes in casinos are also limited
3. The probability of a player in the casino is less than 0.5
And go somewhere else to bullshit, maybe someone will believe you.
It is easy to calculate if the rules of the game, i.e. conditions and amounts of commissions, are known in advance. Any experienced programmer can easily create an algorithm, which inputs the size of overhead, and outputs the value of p or 1 - p. As a last resort, the necessary calculations can be done in any spreadsheet, such as Excel. This is not a problem.
Boy, write on your forehead:
1. Casino funds are limited
2. Betting amounts in casinos are limited, too.
3. The probability of a player in the casino is less than 0.5
And go somewhere else to bullshit, maybe someone will believe you.
1. Casino funds are so much greater than the player's funds that they can be considered to be unlimited.
2. Size of bets in this case does not matter, because the methodology of changing the size of the bet does not change anything at all, the random walk will remain a random walk with any system of bets.
3. Real casino has nothing to do, it is a mathematical problem that takes an ideal situation with absolutely fair play, and clearly demonstrates that even with fair play, the player plummet. Changing the probability in favour of the casino only accelerates that flush.
I'll stay here and keep making scholarly comments on your illiterate nonsense, lest someone take you seriously.