Reality based coin-tosser method that beats 95% of traders in the world.

Discussion in 'Strategy Building' started by Whisky, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. Whisky

    Whisky

    The only flaw is in your brain that can't distinguish between the probability of your decision method and the historical returns of a market. In this case the SP500.

    If you haven't got it yet, I don't care.
     
    #331     Oct 20, 2009
  2. Whisky

    Whisky

    Breakeven in expectation over the very long run if you had no costs. If you go bust in the short run, then the long run does not apply, does it?
     
    #332     Oct 20, 2009
  3. Whisky

    Whisky

    The most likely outcome is that you will lose money. That is, if you place a trade.
     
    #333     Oct 20, 2009
  4. Whisky

    Whisky

    Probably not.
     
    #334     Oct 20, 2009
  5. Don't see how. That was perfect.
    What I want to know is this: what's the Z in LMAZO?
     
    #335     Oct 20, 2009
  6. ZABADOO
     
    #336     Oct 20, 2009
  7. euclid

    euclid

    If you go bust in the short run, you are still bust in the long run and you don't beat 95% of traders. Expectancy is breakeven minus costs only when the probability of going bust is vanishingly small. You need a large trading account in addition to your big pile of coins.
    :)
     
    #337     Oct 20, 2009
  8. MarkBrown

    MarkBrown

    i have a system like that - i think you guys would love it. you will struggle to accept its possibilities, maybe.
     
    #338     Oct 20, 2009
  9. charts

    charts

    ... actually the market's expectancy isn't zero; check the options' model ... somebody took the Nobel for it ... and no, his name doesn't start with "O"

    ... in long run your coin toss approach will loose more than you've estimated, function of interest rates

    ... the market isn't random, and you can't approximate it with a coin toss even for a large number of samples

    ... I guess you knew all of these and just wanted to have fun on ET's crowd expense :)
     
    #339     Oct 21, 2009
  10. The code appears to have two significant bugs in it.
     
    #340     Oct 21, 2009