Topic: : - page 8. (Read 70881 times)
@chodpapa: i am curious where you get your amazing support-resistance charts from?!
greets
greets
It's something like
Days spent at price level / Days since that price
This is starting to smell like a market reversal...
Was waiting for you to say that! lmao
I'm not saying that it looks like one of course... Not yet. But it does smell like one.
You said 3.36 was a reversal in your eyes...
A preliminary indication of a reversal.
This is starting to smell like a market reversal...
Was waiting for you to say that! lmao
I'm not saying that it looks like one of course... Not yet. But it does smell like one.
You said 3.36 was a reversal in your eyes...
This is starting to smell like a market reversal...
Was waiting for you to say that! lmao
I just read the posts by BTCurious and chodpaba and want to make another "not even trolling" comment.
The thing you call "psychological measure" is more formally called "perceptual distance". You can solve your problems by using LSD (no kidding!, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-spectral_distance) or even better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itakura-Saito_distance.
There are two main problems with that approach:
1) the math involved is significantly more hairy, but on the other hand Paul Wilmott introduction is quite good; if somebody's willing to commit the time to understand it.
2) is that there's comparatively little openly published information about the use of nonlinear statistics in finance.
The current situation is that anyone who really knows nonlinear statistics and is willing to work in finance is probably already employed by some quantitative finance boutique.
The thing you call "psychological measure" is more formally called "perceptual distance". You can solve your problems by using LSD (no kidding!, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-spectral_distance) or even better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itakura-Saito_distance.
There are two main problems with that approach:
1) the math involved is significantly more hairy, but on the other hand Paul Wilmott introduction is quite good; if somebody's willing to commit the time to understand it.
2) is that there's comparatively little openly published information about the use of nonlinear statistics in finance.
The current situation is that anyone who really knows nonlinear statistics and is willing to work in finance is probably already employed by some quantitative finance boutique.
You must never divide by zero...
Just don't do it.
If you can handle infinity, than go ahead and divide by zero, no problem at all. But if you cannot handle infinity, as for example USS Yorktown, than perhaps yea it is not such a good idea after all, lol.
Quote
A system failure on the USS Yorktown last September temporarily paralyzed the cruiser, leaving it stalled in port for the remainder of a weekend.
"For about two-and-a-half hours, the ship was what we call 'dead in the water,'" said Commander John Singley of the Atlantic Fleet Surface Force.
...
The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN. The data contained a zero where it shouldn't have, and when the software attempted to divide by zero, a buffer overrun occurred -- crashing the entire network and causing the ship to lose control of its propulsion system.
"For about two-and-a-half hours, the ship was what we call 'dead in the water,'" said Commander John Singley of the Atlantic Fleet Surface Force.
...
The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN. The data contained a zero where it shouldn't have, and when the software attempted to divide by zero, a buffer overrun occurred -- crashing the entire network and causing the ship to lose control of its propulsion system.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987
Actually, the divide by zero comment was just a joke. But I see your point.
Fair enough, sorry for not getting that 
I understand that your way of measuring resistance doesn't let you measure the resistance at 0, because we've never been there. Let me try to rephrase my thoughts then.
The whole concept of the prices feels to me like a relative concept: when the price is $20, and drops to $10, that will be just as bad for BTC holders as when it's $2 and drops to $1*. As such, I feel the entire economy is better represented logarithmically. The whole business with $0 and infinity and whatnot is then just a by-effect, and not really my main point. Another example is: imagine the current price being 0.2, and keeping your axes scales the same. Your graph then wouldn't give much info on the lower resistance, while there certainly might be some.
You could do the same analysis, but just give the graph a logarithmic horizontal axis. I have a feeling that would be the more representative thing to do. Am I wrong here?
*Whether the hypothetical resistance for dropping from 20 to 10 is actually similar to the resistance for dropping from 2 to 1, is a good question. Human psychology might play a role, and skew the results here.
-.-'
I'm not dividing by zero, dude. I'm talking about the price of a bitcoin never hitting zero. Even if everything crashes, it would just be worth very little, like a cent per coin, or less. But not zero. As such, the resistance for zero seems infinite.
The actual support is somewhere below zero, as bitcoins do require resources (disk space for the wallet.dat, though a marginal amount) to maintain. So if bitcoin's value goes below that point, people will expend time (though a marginal amount) to get rid of bitcoins as if they were garbage - and that time is likely to be more valuable than the bitcoins themselves, meaning they had paid to remove bitcoins.I'm not dividing by zero, dude. I'm talking about the price of a bitcoin never hitting zero. Even if everything crashes, it would just be worth very little, like a cent per coin, or less. But not zero. As such, the resistance for zero seems infinite.
Obviously this is a doomsday story and has nothing do with its likely future, but the resistance at zero isn't infinite from a fundamental standpoint. From a technical standpoint, however, chodpada is correct that support cannot be described at zero. This is because both zero and infinity are values no commodity can in theory have.
I have analyzed exactly how the slopes got to be that way. It is mostly a function of how fast we moved through those price levels. The steps on the resistance curve are lower generally because we retraced through price levels several times on the way down, this has the effect of 'erasing' resistance between the price intervals. The opposite happened on the way up through prices on the support side, as we moved quickly through those price levels. And so there is a difference in the slope of the two curves.
That seems like it makes sense.Still though, armchair analysis: the resistance for $0.00 can be expected to be infinite, whereas there is no such equivalent for the upside. On a log scale, this would be obvious, and work out perfectly.
Jump to: