Search results

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong ( I think ). Check this out. If I randomly take crystals ( this wasn't a perfect random sample in our class ) and I just start handing them out it doesn't matter who get's how many of any crystals. Let me try to explain again. I randomly select...

those were just trivial amounts in the OP. dont focus on those.. should have made that more apparent

are you serious? maybe you are not understanding - we already know all the crystals arent being taken out. that is not the question for example you could take someone with 6 blue crystals and split them up into 2x ( 3/6 ) to two other people. there would still be six crystals ( 3/6 + 3/6 )...

Dude, then you didn't get an A in reading comprehension. That wasn't the question. The question was that someone stated there was "bias" because some people got more than others. My only point is that it doesn't make a difference who got them because their fractions would all add up to one...

On what instruments? On what timeframes / volume / tick ? Not to rain on your parade, and I have no idea what you are doing, but 427 days is meaningless IMO. Others may refute that.

Look at the bottom right of his "skirt" thing. It is obviously photoshopped. Whether that is the only part that is, I do not know. But it has obviously been tampered with.

OK, I will take a look at this. Maybe I explained this poorly in the beginning. Nothing really matters, IMO, in this example except eventually how many of these crystals were handed out. No matter if she divided all these up between 2 or 100 people, in the end it doesn't matter who...

The proportions wouldn't matter though ( IMO ) because in the end it would all add up. I agree others had different proportions ( this is obvious ). But in the end they all add up to the same thing so how could the sample size make this have a "biased" result?

No, but I don't think this is any more advanced than adding and subtracting fractions, wouldn't you agree?

She had a bias as to how she handed them out ( come to find out after the results ). She did this on purpose, but this shouldn't matter at all. But my point is that it doesn't matter to whom she handed them, the total amount would still be the same. For example, if someone got 5/5 blue...

Unless I got way too high in the parking lot before class I do not see how this makes any sense. Here is how it went down. She takes a small box of blue and white crystals, they were split evenly. She shook them up etc. So she hands 5 people a "random" ( even though it wasn't ) sample of...

Where is it written about the downgrade in the link you provided? Can't seem to find it.

I cant get the website to work either. Server is down or something. Is there another link?

Was wondering the same thing. What exactly is the purpose of this site?

Or the next time the market drops and you flip the coin correctly, right?

lol

Thanks for putting this on. It was fun even though I was definitely on the wrong end of the stick! Congrats to the winners.

I wanted to edit, but I was over the time limit. I believe in your example you would never need to backtest this idea, is this correct? You have already validated it from years of discretionary trading and are just looking to put that into some sort of programmatic design? Then sure I...

I 100% agree with you. This still though does not overcome the obstacles that I and others have previously described. There is no perspiration or inspiration that can overcome the inherent flaws of current software architecture.

No one is amazed at anything. All that was stated is that you have a very small chance after factoring in all other things previously referenced to be successful. Again, anyone with a legitimate two year plus track record of automated trading can chime in at any time to slap me in the...