DislikedThe reality is a little bit more complicated: [...] If you flip enough coins, you will get sequences of coin flips that seen in isolation from the rest[...]Ignored
- | Joined Oct 2008 | Status: Member | 710 Posts
To create "freshness" in the experiment, they may get a random start point on the price chart to present. It is highly possible that some chart-portion are repeated, and this repetition manifest the memory factor. This problem has not been addressed in their paper.
But I just realised from trad3r, he is one of the champion there. The MIT fake charts look really fake and can't compare to the quality of fakeness on this thread. So this is another critical weakness of the study.
I don't think you actually read the study
- Joined Feb 2009 | Status: Commercial Member <- Don't trust me | 2,976 Posts
Nope, wrong again kk007. New data was used every time. I'm not sure what is so difficult about understanding that? The study specifically said they used a different day's tick data for each example.
I don't think you actually read the study
Anyway this is only the first part of the study, in the second part, they do daily and each time they use the same sequence of daily.
Other problems also happen that make their study cannot apply to here as said by 2 responsents here, trad3r and luqmanz.
To evaluate the robustness of our experimental design, we varied various parameters of
the experiment across data sets, as indicated in the Results section below. In addition,
we presented subjects with data charts in two different ways. For half of the data sets
corresponding to transaction-by-transaction (or “tick”) data, each subject was shown a fresh
set of charts, based on a sequence of returns disjoint from the sequences shown to other
subjects.
For the other half of the data, corresponding to daily data, the charts shown to each subject were based on the same sequence of returns. However, the data was shifted by a random amount for security reasons, i.e., to avoid the possibility that two subjects could coordinate their guesses, for example by simultaneously playing the same charts on two nearby machines.
.
Wrong, consider a stationary Gaussian Random walk, it's generated via random numbers (or as random as a computer can), when it gets more than 2 standard deviations from the mean, what are the chances of the next step being closer to the mean? (hint: it isn't 50%).
I hope to get an answer from you so that I can judge where I'm currently in.
Thanks a million.
- | Joined Sep 2013 | Status: Member | 61 Posts
{quote} Wrong, consider a stationary Gaussian Random walk, it's generated via random numbers (or as random as a computer can), when it gets more than 2 standard deviations from the mean, what are the chances of the next step being closer to the mean? (hint: it isn't 50%).
{quote}Hi Craig, I couldn't stop laughing when I read this. (not mocking you, but agreeing with you) I'm laughing because its what brings in the money for me. I say, "you either get it or you don't." "when it gets more than 2 standard deviations from the mean, what are the chances of the next step being closer to the mean? (hint: it isn't 50%)." OMG! This is my bread and butter.
Anyway i would really appreciate it if someone could have a discussion about this
