The St Petersburg phenomenon. The paradoxes of probability theory. - page 6
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 are very much mistaken in that post
well
the market maker plays as long as he has the product
after that, he takes the profits
the market maker plays for as long as he has the product
After that, he takes the profits
Market maker plays as long as he has the goods
After that it takes a profit
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategies testing
From Theory to Practice
Uladzimir Izerski, 2018.10.24 11:06
You should not care so much aboutliquidity providers. Their spread is always plus and it doesn't matter where the price will go. They don't give a shit.
Here you go:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoks_petersburski
...
3. with dividing by double you can really get caught up in their comparisons :-) in most cases you get a small but skewed result.
...
If you take a skewed one and skew it a bit more, who knows, maybe it will even out.
The number of random number generator states is 32768, not divisible without a remainder by a huge number of numbers. Not divisible by 3, by 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13... etc. So it hardly makes sense to worry about skewness due to an error in the dubs.
There's no such thing as cleverness and theories of improbability. :) It's simple as that. I know about it first hand. It was in the 90s, and I was described to me this scheme in every detail by a man who was doing it himself. Now people are not fooled by it; scammers mostly operate online. But the basic principles remain the same. To lure a person in, take advantage of his weaknesses and get money from him, and then under any pretext the money is not returned.
Why is there no theory of probability? There are three cards, three thimbles, and one correct answer, so the probability of the player winning is 1/3 and the organiser 2/3.
Thank you Oleg, impressive))
You're welcome. It's useful entertainment.
Monty Hall's paradox
Imagine that you are a participant in a game in which you have to choose one of three doors. Behind one of the doors isa car and behind the other two doors aregoats. You choose one of the doors, for example number 1, then the host, who knows where the car is and where the goats are, opens one of the remaining doors, for example number 3, behind which there is a goat. He then asks you if you would like to change your choice and choose door number 2. Will yourchances of winning the car increase if you accept the presenter's suggestion and change your choice?
intuitively really doesn't catch on :)