Dislikedfuck the math.... if you have an even payout game then add one extra element that favors one side then that is an edge and where the money goes.Ignored
Parrondo's Paradox: A Study 9 replies
MTS Vs Random Entry - A Paradox 6 replies
Elliott wave paradox? 3 replies
Question : is this a paradox? 28 replies
Dislikedunweighted randomly generated charts (i.e. where there is always exactly 50% probability of an uptick, and 50% downtick)
...
Finally (and getting off-topic, sorry), threads like this one disturb me. Not that there's anything wrong with the material that's being presented --- it goes without saying that any edge is eroded to the extent that the trader is unable to implement it --- but the heavy...Ignored
DislikedYou haven't done the maths correctly. If it was only 36 slots (1/36 = 2.78% probability of winning) the probability is still 97% that you will lose. Having an extra slot does not increase the casino's edge by 2.7% either (1/37 = 2.70% probability of winning, not 2.78%-2.70% = 0.08%). Let's be clear here, it's the 97% that is the real reason for the casino's advantage, not the 3%. There is no gimmick with the 0, it's just obvious maths.
Don't worry, your behaviour reminds me when they first introduced the National Lottery in the UK. Everyone thought...Ignored
DislikedWhy not make a technical study of random charts, with psych and 10Kh on the side to keep things level?
I've been looking forever for a free online random chart generator that requires no programming/Excel skills -- You just go to the site and start drawing (or applying indicators etc.) Then, one can show if it's possible or not to have an edge on random charts, or at least get some good practice in.Ignored
Dislikedand what good will that do for anyone? you can't even find an edge with all the bullshit you do with REAL charts. random chart generators are easy to write, yet prove little. what a typical waste of time.Ignored
DislikedAlright, nothing in the living room is broken. By weighting the random data we can achieve a "net-flow" much like in the real market. One simple principle that undercuts the random market idea is the fact that it's a normal market procedure to split large orders into little chunks over a day or whatever time frame is required. This gives us a baseline confidence in pervasive/persistent moves in price (trends). Again the mechanism is net flow, and it may be random in the sense that the world is random and the net flow happens to be negative the...Ignored
DislikedThen, one can show if it's possible or not to have an edge on random charts, or at least get some good practice in.Ignored
QuoteDislikedWhile the concept is valid and often useful, my overall approach involves edge as described here. From there, whatever I do technicals with is a list, sometimes a very short one, that I practice with to hone the use of as well as the psychology and mm of. That's not really the usual idea of an edge.
DislikedWhat about this for an idea of 'edge':
You have a simple coin flip betting experiment. In theory there is a 50% chance of getting heads and a 50% chance of getting tails. If you guess correctly you win $10. If you guess wrong you lose $11 (consider the extra $1 as transaction costs). What will happen over time? You will lose your money.
Now, what if we factor in the concept of series' of flips as has been mentoned in the thread instead of taking each flip as a single event. What if we say the probability of getting heads on the next flip...Ignored
DislikedYou haven't done the maths correctly. If it was only 36 slots (1/36 = 2.78% probability of winning) the probability is still 97% that you will lose. Having an extra slot does not increase the casino's edge by 2.7% either (1/37 = 2.70% probability of winning, not 2.78%-2.70% = 0.08%). Let's be clear here, it's the 97% that is the real reason for the casino's advantage, not the 3%. There is no gimmick with the 0, it's just obvious maths.
Don't worry, your behaviour reminds me when they first introduced the National Lottery in the UK. Everyone thought...Ignored
DislikedHere's a thought.
When you discuss coin flips, the underlying premise is that the tosses themselves are perfectly independent. No matter how you want to extend that premise, the results should end up independent.
But why not take a source of real information (i.e. market instrument move) and then analyze the conditional likelihood of some event based upon that study.
For instance, 5 moves up in an instrument might result in a conditional likelihood of a move down that is not 50/50. Or one event conditioned on another might not be 50/50. These...Ignored
DislikedRoulette players tried the same thing. You can't cheat the maths. The likelihood of getting tails is always 50%, no matter what happened before. If we got a million tails before, then the likelihood is still 50% that the next time it will be tails again.
Ask a maths professor if you don't believe it.Ignored
DislikedRoulette players tried the same thing. You can't cheat the maths. The likelihood of getting tails is always 50%, no matter what happened before. If we got a million tails before, then the likelihood is still 50% that the next time it will be tails again.
Ask a maths professor if you don't believe it.Ignored
DislikedThe '0' is not the house's edge and a myth. The ball can only land in one slot, so that is 1 in 36 (using UK roulette), which means a probability of you winning is only 3%.
Worded differently, you have a 97% chance of losing, which means the house has a 97% chance of winning. Saying the house has an edge gives the impression they only have a small advantage, when in reality they have a certainty.
In regards to the OP's opening post, it's coincidence that you get two in a row as the probability remains at 50/50 each time. Do enough coin flips...Ignored
DislikedThis is the problem with thinking too abstractly. If you were to toss a physical coin with 1 million tails in a row, I would gladly wager that the same physical coin would turn up tails in the next toss.
We shouldn't get too bogged down in any theory to lose sight of common sense.Ignored
DislikedIf maths isn't the purest of common sense, then I don't know what is. Go to a maths professor and ask what's the likelihood of tails coming up after a million tails in a row. it is ALWAYS 50%, no matter what happened before.Ignored
DislikedYou are missing the point. I suggest you find a physical coin that you can flip 1 million times (or far less) and get 1million tails to come up in a row. In the event that you do, you are far more likely to get another tail than a head.
It's not the maths that is the issue, it's your interpretation of it.
At some point you need to correct your model to reflect reality
(from a mathematical perspective, you'd be updating your prior belief).Ignored