Simulate the situation. If 1,000 people were forced to trade amongst themselves, how would the graph behave? - page 13
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
schedule options, there are only two of them:
Yes:)
I have seen the results of such an experiment in person. I don't have the graphs handy, it was a long time ago.
Are the graphs like the ones Renat showed?
who was moving the market against the "crowd"?
who rocked the market?
who was moving the market against the "crowd"?
who rocked the market?
their own : "created their own broker"?
;)
Imagine this experiment.
They decided to do a study. They gave away $100 each to a thousand people. They set up their broker, installed an exchange terminal and told everyone: "Start trading". Trade how you like.
You could put orders in the market. You could open deals on the market.
(financial instrument - virtual)
How do you think a chart will behave in such a study?
And how will it end?
In general, the experiment may be interesting, especially if we diversify agents with high quality strategies and money management techniques.) In general the experiment may be interesting, especially if we diversify agents by quality of strategies and money management techniques, and then observe how agents with high-quality algorithms and those who have a lot of capital will take the money from less successful ones. But it would take more than one week to create such an engine...
:))) Yeah...
Gentlemen! Let's face it.
1. You can't make money on SB - you're hindered by martingale and some Dub's theorem, the problem of player ruin, etc.
2. On market quotes - even worse.
What are you all looking for? I don't get it...
The only reasonable explanation is to simulate the process, which has a 100% profit, and then reduce the market to it by complicated transformations? Is that it?
people will see some kind of trend (say, up) and they will start to get hooked on it en masse, this will accelerate the chart up to huge numbers.
then someone decides to close, and people see a trend reversal - they will just as massively start to cover their trades.
but i used to think that price would go down to the initial position where the trend started.
but as pictures from real market #85 show, the price will stop slightly higher.
how can this be explained? people who missed the market crash and ended up with a loss, they already think "ah, it's too late to sell", let's wait, maybe the price will go up.
my opinion on this topic:
people will see some kind of trend (say, up) and they will start to get hooked on it en masse, this will accelerate the chart up to huge numbers.
then someone decides to close, and people see a trend reversal - they will just as massively start to cover their trades.
but i used to think that price would go down to the initial position where the trend started.
but as pictures from real market #85 show, price will stop slightly higher.
how can this be explained? people who missed the market crash and ended up with a loss, they already think "ah, it's too late to sell", let's wait, maybe the price will go up.
probably the same strong impulses, followed by declines...
...
The only reasonable explanation is to simulate a process where we have a 100% profit and then by clever transformations reduce the market to it? Is that it?
You do not observe the stylistics at all, it does not suit a Physicist. Physicists are supposed to say "so what?"