You don't get it because you're a f*ckin' retard... I ended up re-editting the words that I f*ckin' used. 0 means you take the "Given" condition... and don't participate on the decision of the next direction.
Your desperate resort to juvenile defense mechanisms tell me all I need to know about your intelligence. Sorry to have wasted my time on a response. It's too bad you couldn't even see that you finally had someone with a bit more knowledge than yourself come to your defense on parrondo's paradox (part of what pulled me into this thread -- to dispense of any faulty interpretations you were receiving). I'll make sure to not make the same mistake twice.
OK... I thought it was only you but I guess a lot of people don't understand... Apologies... you have an average intelligence...
let me try = (1-the summation of 1/n ) /(1- the summation of (1/n)+[(1/(2^n))* "n choose (n+1)/2"] as n goes from 0 to infiniti.) too tired to solve sorry
we start talking different things. i am still referring to MAESTRO's post with the four different ways his stock can move within two steps. it was a stock, so it cannot stay at the sidetracks and he excluded 0 as the next move. MAESTRO is in teasing mode, so he doesn't clear up things, which i actually find a quite amusing passtime. BTW i am "man", but that handle got banned two days ago. actually i am contemplating on leaving et as well for some time.
BTW that is the funny thing about "(real)x5 last posts" ... someone jumps on you for whatever reason and ... well here goes the "last, last, last, last ..." ...
i found your post a little too obvious in the first place, but actually you nailed it. as long as we do not have additional information about no-random dependencies between the systems or between consecutive steps of one system it is the repetition of independent trials. there is no room for conditional probabilities, since as postulated the trials are independent. there is merit from thinking like this, but the examples provided so far do not hold water by themselves. so we probably end up with wishing nice days to each other, since we do not actually agree on what we are talking about in the first place. just one thing. and this is, in the right hands (minds ... ) really valuable: it does not make difference if you can predict a market or the outcome of a trading system (provided that you can trade the system long and short without changing its properties - i am obviously referring to fees ...). so, building predictable trading systems is like predicting the market. and i will not elaborate on this.