Search results

You are correct: Sandusky was a retiree who still had full access privileges to the athletic areas, hence the eyewitness report of him raping a boy in the shower in 2002. A key question is: IF Sandusky was forced to retire in 1999 because of the 1998 incident, why was he afforded full...

No, Paterno didn't personally witness any abuse, he was informed about it by a then-grad assistant (who is now a full-time assistant coach) and Paterno reported what he was told to his "supervisor". That covers the legal obligations of both men. The question remains whether more should have...

This post might be of interest to you and the OP: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3355103#post3355103

Edited for accuracy :cool:

C/U is the maximum number of consecutive losses leading to ruin. U is fixed because it is an artificial bet. As shown in that other thread that shall remain nameless (but you know which one I'm talking about), the Gambler's Ruin formula is based on the assumption of equal-payoff bets (W =...

OK I found the formula for risk of drawdown and I've put it in the form of the formula in the OP : The risk of drawdown (RoD) is the probability of a trader's account falling by a specified fraction (d). RoD = the lesser of 1 and ((1 - edge)/(1 + edge))^(d*C/U) where C = current...

Sorry, like I said, I don't have the drawdown formula. Apparently at that website you posted, they do it by MC simulation? :confused:

The bet size is U. If you still want that derivation, let me know. N = C/U

This equation is the risk of going broke (100% drawdown) if there is no target account limit or a time limit. There is supposedly another formula that accounts for what you're asking but I don't know what or where it is.

For a "fair coin toss", presumably you mean p = q = 0.5 and W = |L|. In that case, z = 1-z = 0.5 and so RoR = 1, as expected. As I said above, setting the edge equal to the win probability in the Kaufmann case leads to an error. Derivation to be posted later.

That formula is wrong on two counts: (1) it's oversimplified; (2) Edge is not the probability of winning. Here's a much better formula proposed by Peter A. Griffin in his book The Theory of Blackjack: risk_of_ruin = RoR = ((1 - z)/z)^(C/U), where C = current trading account U =...

Or to be more honest about it, you're not capable of expressing it mathematically. To quote yourself: "Seriously, why don't you quit pretending or acting like you know or understand this subject?" Your utter failure to recognize the connection between this and Gambler's Ruin is both...

Wise decision. He's a google-challenged slackwit and a proven waste of time.

See? You ask for a straight answer, then you act like a mule's ass when you get it. You've proven to be nothing but a waste of time. Ignored.

I'll take the word of a rich, successful trader over some no-name blogger anytime: "I know of no way to validate conjectures concerning technical trading without backtesting" -- William Eckhardt

I've already answered this question earlier in the thread.

Your friend sounds like a mess, and is definitely a waste of your limited time. I had one of those time-sucking vampires waste a good portion of my life in high school and I regret my decision to not distance myself to this day. Your friend wants an ATS but he doesn't trust the science...

Not here, and not everybody elsewhere, just those who make it obvious from their posts. http://www.investorwords.com/3541/overbought.html When something is overbought, the indicated action is to sell (aka to predict the trend will turn down). You really are one of the google-challenged...

Didn't insult ALL ETers, dude, just the google-challenged slackwits who have trouble thinking for themselves. I gave you a formula: P{T|S} = (1 - (q/p)^S)/(1 - (q/p)^T) This formula answers all of your questions, except the special case where p = q, which is certain ruin for...