I have read the words above, but the sky is green and there's diffraction from the calcium atoms in the water I am drinking. Like yourself, I am very accomplished. I have obtained the silver medal in computational logistics, but the award ceremony is in a bunker in Papua New Guinea, so I cannot attend. However, if I use the inflatable flying submersible I have invented, I can make it over there in no time. I haven't had time to patent the various glorious inventions I have made, because there are too many. It's the confluence of the moon and the stars that is causing me to stay up all night and come up with great ideas. Sky is turning a violent shade of dark now, so I have to go. It's been purple talking to you. You don't understand my stuff, either, and my statistical advantage is bigger than yours. My gibberish is truly random, you see, and my kung fu is stronger than yours!
Please enjoy making fun of me. Market myths do not help learners. Comparing luck to prediction was a way to create market myths.
Nasim Taleb's book is a rare gem in an ocean of stinking effluent, and there's not really a lot more to be said I'm not sure who all these people who attribute success to randomness actually are. There's taleb, Mlodinow , Mandelbrot, I'm not sure who else we can add to the list I've been wasting my time arguing about the benefits of random trading with intellectual pygmies on various forums since at least 2004. It is interesting nevertheless to see the subject raised from time to time, and encouraging watching people scampering off in entirely the wrong direction. The trade 2 win zoo currently has a rather pitiful random trading thread, surpassed in desperation and lack of common sense only by a similar thread at traders laboratory ! Its not rocket science is it, its all been said a thousand times
Yes, comparing luck to prediction was a way to create myths, however times have changed - myths are often created by comparing predictions to luck. Yes, it may sound backwards, however, it's really a breakthrough in the paradigm...it truly has evolved. You may not understand at first, but reflect on the concept, and embrace the evolution - in time, you will see it's a volatile emancipation.
No he is a perma troll. Not feeding doesn't work. Not even water boarding would stop him. It's kina like athletes foot after awhile you realize it's part of going to the gym and do your best to avoid it.
I have spent the time minimizing luck and eliminating prediction. Your d (luck) / d (prediction) differential is different than the original d (predictiond) / d (luck). Interchanging the paradigm's independent variable and dependent variables changes all. For me the future moves into the present and how finely you deal with it mathematically, there is a fixed limit. The rate of events is the overall paradigm measure. You changed the order for those who still deal with the two variables. I feel that one disappears and the other is unnecessary all based on deduction. Your forward progress will ultimately lead to a new paradigm. A logicoligist must look at the facts and how they unfold. All markets step towards events. This is observed by looking repeatedly at the least change per combination of variables. Context and change of context leads to events. The order of events in trends is irreversable It is unilateral at all times.) So deducing the system of operation of the market does two things: 1. Luck is eliminated, and 2. It becomes very noticable at some point that prediction is NOT a facet of looking repeatedly t the least change per combination of variables. For most, I appear to be talking in a foreign language. As I read your post, I see you profer a huge step in observing a system. I feel that the problem solution anyone faces comes down to being able to see the finest pieces of a system and being able to always use a complete solution that exists for following the order of least changes in variables that lead to an order of events for all types of trends (there are four types of trends, mathematically speaking). So good luck in your pursuit of prediction.
Lmao!! Not even ignoring JH works, with u guys not able to hold from quoting the nutcase. But thanks for the laugh.
Winning wimbledon does not and can not happen by chance. Try playing a mini tour player or a recently off the tour player. Many of them can be found teaching tennis. Could you or any body beat them 7 times in a row. Now make each player much better. There are only a few highly skilled people in the word who can win Wimbledon using their highly developed skills at close to their highest potential. That random things happen may happen along the way like a particular opponent losing early... does not turn a wimbledon victory into something indistinguishable from chance.