Search results

Typically any indicators that claim to show "overbought" or "oversold" conditions are "predictive" in nature. These are indicators that are trying to "pick" tops and bottoms, i.e., trying to predict tops and bottoms. AFAIK they fail more often than not. I personally find it better to detect...

Another idiot heard from. Where did I claim the proof was my own? If you or any of the other google-challenged slackwits reading this had any clue, you'd have found this proof yourself pages ago. For the record, the theorem about the gambler's ruin was proven by Christiaan Huygens. As I...

Thanks for quoting bill's rant. He knows I have him on ignore so I don't have to directly read his idiocy anymore. But this does allow the opportunity for a recap: Notice the lack of any restrictions of any kind on the trading system, the underlying, or anything else. The statement is...

I can't imagine why you'd want to find P{0|S} because the disproof I posted is based on the assumption that T is never smaller than S. If you're trying to reformulate the problem in terms of an actual probability of ruination, I suggest the following: R{T|S} = p*R{T|S+1} + q*R{T|S-1}...

You're a slackwitted mouthbreather with delusions of intelligence and reading comprehension. I tried to get you to find out what "disproof" means but once again you proved that a fool can be led to knowledge but it won't make him think. BTW your presumed knowledge of mathematics is...

Speaking of nitpicking ... Perhaps the meaning of the word "disproof' eludes you, or perhaps you're just a pompous ass with delusions of reading comprehension. Go back and read s-l-o-w-l-y the OP and see if you can spot your mistakes.

Really? Because you completely contradict that here: So I didn't belabor the point that the gambler is ruined if q is greater than or equal to p. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. It's certainly related to the OP. The OP asked for a proof or a disproof. I posted a disproof. Case closed...

No. Gambler's Ruin: Let p be the probability of winning one betting unit. Let q be the probability of losing one betting unit. p + q = 1 Let P{T|S} be the probability of reaching target bankroll T with starting bankroll S. P{T|S} = p*P{T|S+1} + q*P{T|S-1} P{T|0} = 0...

This is Obama Derangement Syndrome on crack with a crystal meth chaser. psychochild >> ignore

Recheck your math: Since $n0/$b is always positive, and p_lose > 0, then (p_lose^($n0/$b))*(p_lose^($n1/$b)) > (p_lose^($n0/$b)). Ooops!

Then you'll have no problem producing the formula that shows 100% risk of ruin.

Go read up on the Gambler's Ruin problem and learn how wrong you are. This is old stuff.

Seriously, guys ... Am I the only one who sees that this is just the old Gambler's Ruin problem crudely dressed up in trading clothes? So long as you have a positive-expectation trading system, your risk of ruin is less than 100% regardless of all the silly "target" bullshit that's been...

Maybe not the whole forum, but this thread is precisely the train wreck I predicted it would be.

No wonder the chickenshit wanted me to put him on ignore. He'd much rather snipe from ambush than risk direct confrontation. Hey, Lucunt, I know you're reading this since you hang on my every word. Why don't you man up like Tsing Tao and put me on ignore? Tsing Tao is a stand-up...

Some people should be smart enough to stay out of the national spotlight. Herman Cain is clearly not one of those people.

Speaking of randy presidents, a story I heard was that Daddy Bush tried to put the moves on some Hollywood actor's wife in the White House. The actor may have been Tom Selleck, who was practically a fixture in the Reagan White House but wanted nothing to do with the Bush 1 White House.

"are you so unoriginal that all you can do is repeat back what (Lucunt) write about you? Or are you still learning to speak?" Let's recap: you're stupid, hypocritical, unoriginal, and definitely childish. Sorry, turd666, but all I do is say again that I am SO VERY FUCKING GLAD to NOT be...

Delusional as well as stupid beyond redemption. Clearly the meaning of "proportional" is over your pinhead. See ya, so glad not to be ya. :D

A logical comparison would be to compare their homes to the median homes in their geographical regions. Even a comparison to the median homes in NYC would make more sense. As already pointed out, homes in a given region can cost significantly more than identical homes in a different region...