View Full Version : How important is a knowledge of maths?
Hey
As name: Just how important is an understanding of maths in forex trading?
(not very basic maths I mean more advanced mathematics)
Thanks
I must take my nap now. I have been up too long. I want to thank you all and thought. It is wonderful how useful google could be when you can't remember the answers that are real.
You're right. Deficiency of sleep/shooting from the hip got me . 2*2*2*2*2*2=64. duh.
There are 64 possible results (strings of 6 trades), among which is 6 winners in a row. Odds are 1/64.
So if you do 64 strings of 6 transactions (384 trades) then you should have 6 winners in a row somewhere in there. That is logical. But that does not ensures that we'll not experience more than 6 winners in a row? If we do 128 strings of 6 transactions. . We may have 12 losers in a row, etc ....
The question is, will our equity endure that 12/24/36 losers in a row (if it ever happens)?
My thoughts is on holiday so I can not figure it out but I believe you are wrong. From the California Super Lotto the likelihood of picking 5 correctly out of 47 amounts is 1,592,937 to 1. My logic relies on this http://www.calottery.com/Games/SuperLottoPlus/HowtoPlay/. I'm obtaining 47*46*45*44*43 = 18,407,200. Way off.
The site says you have a 1 in 49 chance of choosing the mega. What's that if there are 27 amounts?
They say the lottery is merely a tax on the ones that are bad at math.
The website says pick 5 of 47, then 1 of 27 for the mega number.
I am getting 47*46*45*44*43*27 = 4,969,960,000. One in about 5 billion.
They say the lottery is just a tax on those that are poor at math. But were not looking at 5 out of 47 after which 1 from 27. We're looking for 5 from 40. Right? http://www.lottogenie.com/html/odds.html. We can figure the likelihood of information. ???
I copied this off the other site.
1/40 × 1/39 × 1/38 × 1/37 × 1/36 = 1/78960960
So, at this time, your probability of winning are 1 in 78960960. However, as it's possible to pick your winning numbers in any order, your odds of winning will be somewhat better than that. Your chance betters from the amount of ways a succession of 5 numbers can be composed, and for 5 numbers will be 5! (5 factorial) or 120. Split 78960960 from 120 into account for this, to get 658008.
In other words, there are 120 distinct ways the 5 numbers you select can be filled out on your own lottery ticket--should you decide on your 5 numbers correctly, any of the manners will make a winning ticket.
That Is the answer. No, my response is correct.
No, my answer is accurate. Yes, you are.
In lottery order is not required.
Let us take another bite.
On a 50:50 win/lose foundation, how many transactions it takes when a direct 6-time reduction will likely to happen?
I copied this off another site. Yup, I find now, that's correct. This is logical.
If you'd like to select them in order, then multiplying will be proper.
Quite simply, you've got 5 of 40 opportunities to acquire the one of the figures, 4 in 39 to get another of these, etc..
5/40*4/39*3/38*2/37*1/36 = 1 in 658,008
So for your CA site it would be,
5/47 * 4/46 * 3/45 * 2/44 * 1/43 = 1 in 1,533,939. Didn't obtain their answer exactly....
But if I put in the mega, then I get their number.
5/47*4/46*3/45*2/44*1/43 * 1/27 = 1 in 41,416,353
That's the right means to do it.
No, my response is correct. Yup, you did it right.
Yes, you are.
In lottery order is not required.
Let us take another bite.
On a 50:50 win/lose basis, how many trades it requires when a direct 6-time loss will likely to happen? 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/12 chance of that streak happening.
So from 12 strings of 6 trades, it should occur once, statistically.
That could be 72 trades. If your win/loss is 50/50, and 72 trades are made by you, you'll have a 6 loss chain in there.
Check my math, JT, am I correct?
Maintain the probability questions!
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/12 possibility of the streak happening.
So from 12 strings of 6 trades, it should happen once, statistically.
That could be 72 trades. In case your win/loss is 50/50, and 72 trades are made by you also, you will have a 6 loss chain in there.
Check my math, JT, am I correct? I really don't know if that is right. You have a 50 percent chance of losing any 1 trade, so you need to increase the likelihood of losing by 6 to get the likelihood of a string of 6 losses (or wins).
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/64, maybe not 1/12
Very often you get divergence between an indior (such as CCI, RSI, stoch) and price. Price makes a peak and goes up, the indior creates a peak and goes .
If the indior is just a moving average, how could this be?
It cannot, it is mathematically impossible. Ahh. . But if you do not know math, then it is just voodoo...
Or a small man inside your computer drawing material you do not understand. .
It's mathematically POSSIBLE because in the event that you cross a faster MA using a slower MA and subtract the gap; then as soon as the price is moving in the correct direction but at the rate that is slower than it was previously, the lengthier MA will ch upward and will result in divergence. .
But then again, why bother learning math. .
The likelihood questions appeared to get a memory bias in the coin reverse or anything you are doing has no memory when it flipped tails or heads every single time, so the odds is identical. . And streaks will happen for and against you, you do not know when, and you also do not know for how long. .
I programmed a roulette wheel in to software, and ran streak analysis. . (this is the reason why I use to get pumped out of casinos)...
I do a thousand runs against the wheel in a time; some win, some lose, long term, nothing that I can do to beat the 5.26% advantage the house has me over. .
So many who do not know math, aren't factoring in the bid/ask overhead and also how that wrecks havoc on your calculations and changes your win/loss charts down drastically; especially at lower timeframes. .
I like this query to how significant is it to know programming? It is difficult, although you are able to win with programming. . And again, nobody appears to be answering the main questions whatsoever, that is:
if you're able to give yourself and advantage, no matter how slight, why would not you? Response, as you are dumb and lazy. .
Ahh.. But if you do not know math, then it's just voodoo...
No, I really don't know math, I am only an electric engineer
Or some small man inside your personal drawing stuff that you do not understand. .
That is exactly right, there is a little man in there. Put them in and I used to hire them.
it's mathematically POSSIBLE because in the event that you cross a quicker MA using a slower MA and subtract the difference; afterward when the price is moving in the right direction but at the rate which is slower than it was previously, the longer MA will ch up and will result in divergence. .
That clarifies MACD. That wasn't on the list - CCI, RSI, Stochs.
Stochs and RSI don't use moving averages of price. That is the reason. But why bother doing 30 minutes study on investopedia on what you're attempting to hold a conversation about? Especially if your self (and whatever else) is so small that your actual purpose here is simply to convince other people of your superior intellect.
but then again, why bother learning math. .
The likelihood questions appeared to have a memory bias so that the coin reverse or whatever you're doing does not have memory when it flipped tails or heads last time, so the odds is identical. . And streaks will occur for and against you, you do not know when, and you also do not know for how long. .
I programmed a roulette wheel in to software, and conducted streak analysis. . (this is the reason why I use to get pumped from casinos)...
I do a million runs against the wheel at a time; some win, some lose, long term, nothing I can do in order to beat the 5.26% advantage the home has me over. .
So many who do not know math, are not factoring in the bid/ask overhead and also the way that wrecks havoc on your own calculations and shifts your win/loss graphs down drastically; especially at reduced timeframes. .
I like this question to how important is it to know programming? You are able to win with programming, but it's difficult. . And again, nobody appears to be answering the main questions of all, which is:
if you're able to give yourself and advantage, no matter how slight, why would not you? Answer, because you're stupid and lazy. .
Subsequently there are a lot of lazy, stupid, successful traders out there. I really don't believe I'd call people stupid if I had bothered to see stochs are calculated before getting on my high horse.
Gee, I wish I was as smart as you, then I, also could be superior to J. Welles Wilder, Martin Pring, Larry Willi, Tushar Chande, Dr. Alex Elder, and all the other (wealthy ) fools who think that indiors mean something useful.
I do not know whether that's right. You've got a 50% chance of dropping any 1 trade, which means you need to multiply the likelihood of shedding by 6 to get the likelihood of a string of 6 losses (or wins).
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/64, not 1/12
andersenws You're right. I was got by Deficiency of sleep/shooting in the hip . 2*2*2*2*2*2=64. duh.
There are 64 possible results (strings of 6 transactions ), one of which will be 6 losers in a row. Chances are 1/64.
So if you do 64 strings of 6 trades (384 transactions ) then you should have 6 losers in a row somewhere in there.
This makes sense. But that does not ensures that we won't encounter more than 6 winners in a row? If we do 128 strings of 6 trades. . We may have 12 losers in a row, etc ....
The question is, will our equity survive that 12/24/36 losers in a row (if it happens)? For 12 losers in a row, it is a new problem.
Now you've got odds of 1 / 2^^12 = 1 in 4096 chances of obtaining a series of 12 losses in a row.
So if you did 4096 strings of 12 trades, (49,152) you could get 12 losers in a row.
1/40 * 1/39 * 1/38 * 1/37 * 1/36 = 1 / 78960960
correct? That's the answer.
Powered by forexintuitive® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 forexintuitive Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.