Welcome to the Bet Angel Professional Community

Dumb traders make as much money as smart ones

It's all in the mind

Postby Ferru123 » Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:01 pm

Not sure what you're getting at - Can you elaborate please?

Jeff

mister man wrote:at this point i throw into the equation, the law of averages...

User avatar
Ferru123
Archangel Professional
Archangel Professional
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:51 pm
  

Postby mister man » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:10 pm

randomness and the law of averages go hand in hand.

coin toss, in theory its 50/50 i know i know dont start that one about its not...lets say roughly its 50/50 on each toss.

the lottery numbers, the roulette table...

the law of averages, are the counter weight to randomness...

penalties and dodgy decisions that even out over the season (managers say or dont) etc,etc,

33% of favs win, somedays it might be 60%, but you know soon enough it comes back in line...

tbh i think the whole title of the threads wrong anyway, as nobody has defined dumb or smart,nor can they, but only be their own definition...

happy gambling

User avatar
mister man
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm
  

Postby Ferru123 » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:13 pm

Mister Man

I agree about randomness and the law of averages, ie if you toss a coin 10,000 times, you'll get about 5,000 heads and 5,000 tails.

I don't see what your point is though. Are you saying that the markets are random, and therefore trading is like betting at odds of 2.0 on the toss of a coin?

Jeff

User avatar
Ferru123
Archangel Professional
Archangel Professional
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:51 pm
  

Postby Euler » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:56 pm

The law of averages isn't actually a law at all, in academic circles it's know as the gamblers fallacy.

The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913),[1][2] and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely.

User avatar
Euler
Archangel Professional
Archangel Professional
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ
  

Postby Zenyatta » Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:57 am

I guess Peter offers something like tossing the coin twice and asks, which sequence is more likely:

HT [heads, tails] or
TT [tails, tails]

Without thinking, some might say the first sequence is more likely, but of course both are equally likely.

User avatar
Zenyatta
Archangel Professional
Archangel Professional
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:17 pm
  

Postby Euler » Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:15 am

10/10 Zenyatta, when you ask people to pick a seqeunce of random events they inevitable get it wrong. You can subtly influence their choice as well depending on how you ask them. You see exactly the same thing in the market. People assign weight to a trade that they really shouldn't, they see a pattern that just doesn't exist.

User avatar
Euler
Archangel Professional
Archangel Professional
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ
  

Previous

Return to Psychology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login Form