Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 24666. (Read 26713657 times)

Don't be this poor feller...  

4.2 k BTC ask wall @ Bitfinex 

Explanation

the rabbit is giving a bouquet to the successful mission... duh...

peanut gallery

Why does the panda bear have a helmet but the rabbit doesn't seem to need one


Something fishy going on, don't trust that rabbit and that bouquet of broken dreams he's selling.

I really won't.
What's wrong with waiting it out?

Strange poster.

People who do that don't post in this thread or in that fashion. You"ll sell before you have GBP 2000 left.

I bet you'll crack even before 2/3 unrealized losses.

That's a valid conclusion, but it is based on assumptions that are not applicable to reality, so the conclusion isn't either.

There is also not one strategy in poker that allows a good player to dominate all other players to the point where he essentially extracts all winnings. There isn't one immutable algorithm either in computer poker doing this.

In reality, they are complex, and constantly changing strategies that are competing against each other. Strategy A might win against clearly inferior strategies B and C most of the time, but it could underperform against a strategy D that, on the other hand performs less well against B and C than A (though it still wins against them, just less).

A better approximation to actual trading and predicting, rather than some armchair notion of "the strategy that dominates all others" are predictive factors, anyway. Harvey et al mentions a few of them, with the non-surprising result that 'momentum' comes out pretty high.



That's one of the stronger arguments against trading, I admit. However, if the claim simply is "a vast majority of traders will not be EV+", then there's no disagreement between us, but that's not quite the same as declaring trading to be purely a process of chance.

Another game comparison to illustrate that point (chess this time, as it's now about skill): Let's say the average beginning chess player's Elo score is 900 (not sure if it is, but let's say). Let's set a chess algorithm to that value, plus a bit on top (say by limiting the amount of halfturns it is allowed to calculate ahead). If you let the entirety of all chess players play against this computer, and assuming that beginners outnumber the higher Elo players greatly (which they actually have to if we define skill through Elo), then a vast number of players will never stand a chance against that computer. Furthermore, if you would only look at the aggregate results, you might conclude that the remaining 5%, maybe 10% of players that do beat our crippled chess computer are simply the lucky outliers, and that skill had nothing to with it (similar to the "coin flip" analogy you employ).

Of course, you'd be wrong in the case of chess, but the point is: from the experimental setup, you couldn't tell the difference, because you are looking at /all/ players against some arbitrary goal (long term profitability), instead of looking at a carefully selected group trying to find out if there is a correlation between some skill set and performance.

^
Hello!

Here he is ^^^^

Mr positivity

Ready for the price adjustment?

Wow, look at the ask side LOL

1.1k btc to 382

I will be waiting for it to go down to 350 before I buy but i'm not sure I will even get that opportunity..

already 1000 coins to 350

Inverted sunday dump inc

Dance on moonbeams
Slide on rainbows
In furs or blue jeans
You know what I mean...

Really low volume...

Explanation