Search results

(:))

sounds as vague as MAESTRO himself. well. fine with me. take care.

you got me curious. what did you simulate?

everybody went that route at one point of time ... amazing ...

a market neutral strategy tested without adjusting for commissions. meaningless.

sh.t. MAESTRO, do well, no idea what your situation is, but hospitals are no place you go for vacation. here's caring for you ... g.

i found your post a little too obvious in the first place, but actually you nailed it. as long as we do not have additional information about no-random dependencies between the systems or between consecutive steps of one system it is the repetition of independent trials. there is no room...

ah, and: yes. you did not give too much away ... :)

BTW that is the funny thing about "(real)x5 last posts" ... someone jumps on you for whatever reason and ... well here goes the "last, last, last, last ..." ...

we start talking different things. i am still referring to MAESTRO's post with the four different ways his stock can move within two steps. it was a stock, so it cannot stay at the sidetracks and he excluded 0 as the next move. MAESTRO is in teasing mode, so he doesn't clear up things...

i heard that i will hear something.

i think an ending in fib levels would be quite an amusement to me ...

MAESTRO my guess is that we end up with talking about different things. but as i said, i'll continue tomorrow. TS great that you do well. though your posts are trending towards a more disorganized style so to speak. you write like a 17yr old beauty who is marrying today and just found...

(trust me, if it wasn't you i'd call you names and leave. but, since it IS you, i'll continue tomorrow ... .)

exactly my point. the reality of our game is much different.

i just realize i circumvented the question you asked. i will correct that tomorrow and calc the outcomes given the first event was +1 ...

i translated this stock into a spreadsheet. i simulated all four cases. each time the stock moves up by P(up)=50% or down by P(50%). the result after 10.000 simulations is: result=2: 25% result=0: 51% (rounding error, in essence it is obviously 50%) result=-2: 25% talk me out of...

i definitely agree with this scenario showing 33% for each outcome. my point is that all of a sudden the conditional probability has vanished. the initial point as i understood it, was that we necessarily look at a two step situation, with two independent players. to me your scenario is...

just my thoughts. apple is kind of luxury good for the masses and they should feel reduced spending. but the biggest question mark is probably the health of steve jobs. apple IS steve jobs. as a long term investment for your kids i think google is the stronger candidate.

i love clinton. but this guy is really unique in his way of interaction. did you see that he leaves his hand 15 seconds on this woman's hand, lying on her knee? he does not mean it in any bad way, but this is a little disrespect for another person's territory. IMO.