Keeper.
Does Probability exist?
- Thread starter game
- Start date
Keeper.
I agree. It does.
n
Totally false and misleading information. I guess these folks work for the brokers who survive by propagating such material. This is basically saying to find the "cause" is by looking at the "result" which is price. Assbackwards and twisted--- yet strangely appealing. I nearly felt a state of zen when reading the above post---- think about it, don't let your mind go down this path. surf
Totally false and misleading information. I guess these folks work for the brokers who survive by propagating such material. This is basically saying to find the "cause" is by looking at the "result" which is price. Assbackwards and twisted--- yet strangely appealing. I nearly felt a state of zen when reading the above post---- think about it, don't let your mind go down this path. surf
You know NOTHING about me.
You say I probably work for brokers. That's a lie (I can know that and you don't) and an insinuation without any proof at all. Not the first time. But that is typical for gurus.
Those who liked my posting are probably also working for brokers. Surfer fighting windmills like Don Quichotte.
You are a demagogue. Telling lies and adapting stories at your convenience.
People should always be careful when somebody warns them for some danger. In reality most of the time they are themselves the biggest danger by trying to put the focus on somebody else. Distraction.
So people should think about that when reading your (FALSE) statements.
So think about it, don't let your mind go down Surf's path.
Every invention starts with defining a problem, and then trying to solve it. But Surf denies that.
You say I probably work for brokers. That's a lie (I can know that and you don't) and an insinuation without any proof at all. Not the first time. But that is typical for gurus.
Those who liked my posting are probably also working for brokers. Surfer fighting windmills like Don Quichotte.
You are a demagogue. Telling lies and adapting stories at your convenience.
People should always be careful when somebody warns them for some danger. In reality most of the time they are themselves the biggest danger by trying to put the focus on somebody else. Distraction.
So people should think about that when reading your (FALSE) statements.
So think about it, don't let your mind go down Surf's path.
Every invention starts with defining a problem, and then trying to solve it. But Surf denies that.
You can derive a historical probability of an event x happening in the market from looking at history. However, since the distribution is not stationary i.e. it is not like roulette, your derived probability is subject to error in the future. This is how, for example, Long Term Capital Management destroyed themselves, by using historical data that since something had not happened before, there was no chance of it happening in the future.
Depends on whether one is looking at numbers or behavior. If the latter, there is nothing that has not happened before. Charles Mackay can tell you all about it.
Can you explain me then why this works on 1000+ consecutive trades (2-3 years period)?
Will not post the number of good signals, but much higher than statistically expected in "random" scenario.
Same scenario's repeat over and over again. This would contradict what you wrote I think.
I don't use historical data, I use historical behaviour. So maybe the example I gave was not correct because I never watch prices, I watch the development of the market behaviour. If I have a signal I react, no matter where the price is, price is irrelevant to me.
Last edited: