It just is. It is how the trader deals with uncertainty that is either good or bad.So, if it leans towards uncertainty is that good or is that bad?
It just is. It is how the trader deals with uncertainty that is either good or bad.So, if it leans towards uncertainty is that good or is that bad?
So, if they lean towards certainty is that good or is that bad for a trader?They're pretty uncertain, aren't they? But they lean toward certainty: they're "(some) order in chaos" rather than "chaos in order", IMO. My perhaps-simplistic first reaction is that that's good, because it produces enough behavioral duplicability for some statistical edges to be both possible and viable.
"Balance of probability" is not quite the same as probability. There is no numeric specificity upon which you can hang your hat with any certainty. Uncertainty is the ugly cousin of probability.Probability could imply both: certainty and uncertainty...to some degree on either.
That would be inserting the psychological strenght or weakness of a trader into the situation. I am referring to the market itself and the benefits/advantages or cons/disadvantages of its leanings for a trader especially in terms of potential profitability.It just is. It is how the trader deals with uncertainty that is either good or bad.
So, if they lean towards certainty is that good or is that bad for a trader?
So is uncertainty the product of probability or is probability the product of uncertainty?"Balance of probability" is not quite the same as probability. There is no numeric specificity upon which you can hang your hat with any certainty. Uncertainty is the ugly cousin of probability.
With true uncertainty, you do not have a legitimate probability distribution. Trading does not offer a true probability distribution, and you should not mistake a frequency distribution of past trades or market behavior as giving you numeric specificity of future probabilities. Uncertainty is more murky than probability. It requires a wider berth.So is uncertainty the product of probability or is probability the product of uncertainty?
So there is a false uncertainty and a true uncertainty? False uncertainty would offer true probability? And frequency distribution of past trades cannot indicate future probability? So are we at 50/50 on all trades? Anyone agree? If so, how do we arrive at 50/50? Through a frequency distribution of past trades or past market behaviour?With true uncertainty, you do not have a legitimate probability distribution. Trading does not offer a true probability distribution, and you should not mistake a frequency distribution of past trades or market behavior as giving you numeric specificity of future probabilities. Uncertainty is more murky than probability. It requires a wider berth.
How do you, as a trader..investor...calculate balance of probability if not by frequency distribution of past trades, price action, and market behaviour?I don't think I'd ever use the term "certainty" in describing market behavior. As I see it, leaning towards the balance of probability is about as good as it gets.
"Balance of probability" is not calculated with numeric specificity. It is roughly estimated with a wide margin for error based in part on the frequency distribution of past market behavior. If you can legitimately get more accurate than that, as with a genuine probability distribution, then you must be a savant.How do you, as a trader..investor...calculate balance of probability if not by frequency distribution of past trades, price action, and market behaviour?