Probability assessment is purely mathematical - page 10
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
Unintentional - always? That's what interests me.
At least I have already given evidence in the forum that neighbouring increments are not just correlated, but also dependent
OK, I'll read it if I find it :)
at least I've already given evidence on the forum that neighbouring increments are not just correlated, but also dependent
Good. But, Alexei, apparently it is not fashionable nowadays to prove the non-accidental nature of market phenomena. That's why I asked to prove: the price is random - too many people here say so.
Abzasc:
Non-accidental - always? That is what interests me.
That's at least the way it's been so far.
Is increment not part of the price behaviour?
Why not, it does. But take increments, incremental increments. to get a random value under the normal law.
At least I've already given evidence on the forum that neighbouring increments are not just correlated, but also dependent
Couldn't you provide a link. ARPSS has a different view: the autocorrelation can be used to judge the model of the series.
Can you prove it? Not that I am a fan of asking for proof, but I have proof to the contrary.
But, as they say, I asked first. :)
PS. A little bit of proof will do the trick.
If you accept the current price movement as derived from macroeconomic news or speculative trends, then I suggest you simply recalculate (1,2,3, ....) the number of factors and complex (terribly complex) intricacies in the form of constant overlay of one news on another, echoes from one market to another and other, idiotically innumerable events that affect the current price position. If you are happy to "conserve" statistics and use them (literally) as a basis for proving the long-term trends of the market? Then everything is a standard statistician's approach, which is wishful thinking.
How can one look at the enormous number of superimposed factors, which allegedly drive the market, and then base a long-term plan on that ...........? HOW? What evidence are you talking about?
I've written this here before, but I'll say it again ........
The phantoms we create:
May the army of "elioters" forgive me, but the adherence to the technique of identifying waves, bounces from levels and the principled expectation of passing through psychological levels with .0000 (zeros) after the decimal point, is nothing more than mass worship of an odious idea. But at the expense of the massiveness of this worship, technically this model has a place. And that's great. But how is it different from reading coffee grounds? And how can a confidently lagging indicator, or a rock painting on the historical traces of quotes, help in this case?
I assess everything that happens as a primitive upward and downward price movement. And that is enough for me, especially since it is an absolutely repeatable phenomenon. The calculation of probability of results (link to the topicstarter) with the same starting conditions will steadily tend to the value of 50/50 for a period. And this trend is also absolutely systematic.
Events (price movements) in the past are nothing more than statistical data having a visual representation, I am disinclined to consider historical moving averages tied to price changes in the present. If only because extracting precious regularities from such practices is akin to self-delusion.
Price appreciation is a completely random process and all attempts to attach characteristic features to one or another movement are nothing more than trading with the hope of success!
This is the reason why I don't like forex. I don't know about others, but I don't understand currency pricing at all. And then there are two... What fundamental factors add up to the price ? In equities everything is precise and clear, you buy a piece of equity which has a real value. With this calculation, I understand firstly, that I am buying part of the company and secondly, I can understand what price I am paying, high or low. In some (very rare) cases I can say with a guarantee that I paid less for the company than it's worth and even if it goes bankrupt tomorrow I will get a profit. And if it works and brings profit, it will bring me profit. It is profitable for everybody.
With forex it is not clear. We chase prices, but we only understand them when we understand what we are paying for. Some people think that there are no prices on forex, yes there are... Just presented as a ratio of these prices. What am I paying for (changing my currency) and what do I own after payment and who benefits from it anyway?
I think currency trading is only needed in times of repression. When you save your dough in the currency of another, stronger country.
Inflation is thought to determine the price of a currency, but that mostly determines the rate of depreciation of the currency. A currency with a maturity expectation < 0. Of course there is positive inflation, but not with us and not in many other countries. Hence forex trading itself is not sensible.
Damn, such problems have had bearded solutions for a long time, and you are still lambasting them. Let the probability that the first sniper kills is p(a) = 0.6, let the probability that the second sniper kills is p(b) = 0.3. In this case it is necessary and sufficient that at least one shot of either sniper is fatal. Although both at once will also do. Then the probability of fatal outcome as a result of simultaneous firing of both snipers is equal:
p(lethal) = p(a) + p(b) - p(a)*p(b) = 0.72
OK, what do you say about the random event: Lokis and a squirrel on a branch... "at once".
The need to study resilient mathematics has been expressed here. Like - if we know that if one squirrel=0.3,one Misha =0.6 then for an event "together" the information is "maluva"...
But we know that the size of branches and dead wood is normally distributed in the forest.
;)
PS. Bear and squirrel, characters fabulous - moisture and volume unchanged!
If you accept the current price movement as derived from macroeconomic news or speculative trends, then I suggest you simply recalculate (1,2,3, ....) the number of factors and complex (terribly complex) intricacies in the form of constant overlay of one news on another, echoes from one market to another and other, idiotically innumerable events that affect the current price position. If you are happy to "conserve" statistics and use them (literally) as a basis for proving the long-term trends of the market? Then everything is a standard statistician's approach, which is wishful thinking.
How can one look at the enormous number of superimposed factors, which allegedly drive the market, and then base a long-term plan on that ...........? HOW? What evidence are you talking about?
I've written this here before, but I'll say it again ........
The phantoms we create:
may the army of "eliotics" forgive me, but the adherence to wave detection techniques, bounces from levels and the principled expectation of passing through psychological levels with .0000 (zeros) after the decimal point, is nothing but mass worship of an odious idea. But at the expense of the massiveness of this worship, technically this model has a place. And that's great. But how is it different from reading coffee grounds? And how can a confidently lagging indicator, or rock-painting the historical traces of quotes, help in this case?
Not only is this not proof, but it does not remotely amount to proof. Your judgement is along the lines of: "There are so many factors influencing pricing that it's easier to think of the price as random".
I assess everything that happens as a primitive upward and downward price movement. And that is enough for me, especially since it is an absolutely repeatable phenomenon. The calculation of probability of results (link to the topicstarter) with the same starting conditions will steadily tend to the value of 50/50 for a period. And this trend is also absolutely systematic.
Events (price movements) in the past are nothing more than statistical data having a visual representation, I am disinclined to consider historical moving averages tied to price changes in the present. If only because extracting precious regularities from such practices is akin to self-delusion.
I have to disappoint. The probability of a profitable trade with the "Random Price" approach is not 0.5, but less due to the inevitable spread as death and taxes. And in the case of small targets, significantly less than 0.5, tending to 0 as the targets get smaller. In addition, some features of CR (such as thick tails in the distribution and non-stationarity) further reduce the probability of success with this passive approach.
Isn't it because 90% of traders are losing money, that they not only do not try to take regularities into account, but clearly state the random nature of price formation?
Identifying and exploiting patterns not only allows one to "raise" the probability of success to 0.5, but to exceed that hellish threshold. Even 0.5001 gives a huge advantage.
I`m not going to prove the non-random nature of CR, you do not need it.
PS By exploiting regularities even such "flaws" as thick tails in the distribution and non-stationarity can be exploited.
PPS I sincerely wish the adherents of "Random Price" good luck. They will need it. And myself, in turn, I'll try not to return to this topic, the order is bored because.
Can't a link be provided. ARPSS has a different opinion: the autocorrelation can be used to judge the pattern of the series.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/8295 yes it can and anyone who thinks can download this indicator - install it and see that there are patterns in forex