I think people are confused, and so I will make my attempt to clarify a few misnomers..

And I shall start with my favorite instrument, the roulette wheel.

In a perfect environment, the spin of the roulette wheel is "random".

BUT, the game of roulette is set with a certain expectancy.

Win% = 1 out of 38

Pay% = 1 to 36

Final expectancy = -5.26%

Now most think the casino's try to cheat, in fact, they work really hard to make the spins as random as possible; they level the wheel, change the balls etc.. all in an attempt to make it "random".

Given X to be spins

Given Sigma(E) to be a summation of expectancy in the real world

We derive for roulette that:

As X -> Infinity, Sigma(E) will asymptotically approach -5.26%.

So even if the markets are "random" as some claim, it probably is not the point that people should be focused on. Is the bias positive or negative against the player, and thus begging the question, is expectancy positive or negative for the system you are using at hand?

If your system is negative, no amount of non-randomness or randomness is going to help you.

If your system is positive, then you want the market to be as random as possible.

If you have no clue; because you are on FF, I'm sure you will still chime in with "I don't know any math but I still disagree".

Everybody keeps focusing on the equivalent of predicting what number will come up next on the roulette wheel. That shouldn't be the focus. If I was the house, like I said before, I'd work really hard to make sure the roulette was completely random, as any bias will more than likely work against me and not for me.

Do you have a system, that given ideal conditions, has a positive expectancy? If not, then debating the randomness of the market is a moot point.

And I shall start with my favorite instrument, the roulette wheel.

In a perfect environment, the spin of the roulette wheel is "random".

BUT, the game of roulette is set with a certain expectancy.

Win% = 1 out of 38

Pay% = 1 to 36

Final expectancy = -5.26%

Now most think the casino's try to cheat, in fact, they work really hard to make the spins as random as possible; they level the wheel, change the balls etc.. all in an attempt to make it "random".

Given X to be spins

Given Sigma(E) to be a summation of expectancy in the real world

We derive for roulette that:

As X -> Infinity, Sigma(E) will asymptotically approach -5.26%.

So even if the markets are "random" as some claim, it probably is not the point that people should be focused on. Is the bias positive or negative against the player, and thus begging the question, is expectancy positive or negative for the system you are using at hand?

If your system is negative, no amount of non-randomness or randomness is going to help you.

If your system is positive, then you want the market to be as random as possible.

If you have no clue; because you are on FF, I'm sure you will still chime in with "I don't know any math but I still disagree".

Everybody keeps focusing on the equivalent of predicting what number will come up next on the roulette wheel. That shouldn't be the focus. If I was the house, like I said before, I'd work really hard to make sure the roulette was completely random, as any bias will more than likely work against me and not for me.

Do you have a system, that given ideal conditions, has a positive expectancy? If not, then debating the randomness of the market is a moot point.

google: