I didn't watch the webinar and so am not certain what the presenter intended. But.... if you have 199 chicks and 1 rooster in a barn, neither the odds nor the probability that the next animal out is a chick would be 50/50. Further, if you take a roulette wheel, the odds of the ball landing on red are not 50/50 either - darn those zeros. But if you take away the zeros, and only have 36 numbers on the wheel, and exactly half the numbers are black and half the numbers are red, then your odds are exactly 50/50 the next number that comes up will be red. Given those conditions, you can spin from now on, and those odds will never change. (But for good measure, if there were 199 reds on the wheel and only 1 black, do you think the Las Vegas odds makers would pay you even money, you take red and they take black? I hope not.). Finally, back to the good ol' zero-less roulette wheel... even though your odds of getting a red on the next spin will always be 50/50, the probability of getting consecutive reds changes depending on how many consecutive hits you're looking for. The probability of getting 2 consecutive reds is 1/4. The probability of getting 3 consecutive reds is 1/8. The probability of getting 7 consecutive reds is 1/128. So on this hypothetical roulette wheel, the odds don't change - but the probability of consecutive hits does.
The following user says Thank You to timefreedom for this post:
Having watched his webinars and followed for some time this is what he means by the 50/50 probability:
1) Your edge (assuming you have one) is say 70% you win, 30% you lose. This edge has been tested using your system over time. It is an average of a sequence of trades.
2) The odds of your exact next trade being a winner/loser is 50%/50%. Why? Because there are only two choices and you cannot know whether this exact trade is a winner/loser. Hence 50%/50%.
Which makes sense. If you knew that the odds of your next trade was 30% you would skip that trade and wait for the trade in your sequence that was a likely winner. This is called cherry picking your trades. Ever done that with a successful edge? Usually it leads to having no edge at all. Don't believe me? Try picking winners and losers within your defined edge. Are you able to improve your edge doing this activity? Not likely or you already would have done so.
Another way of looking at it is:
Any 1 trade's outcome is completely non determinable (i.e., 50/50)
Any sequence of trades (assuming an edge is present) can have a known probable outcome (i.e, 70/30)
This concept is not anything new and has been in trading books about money management for time eternal.
The following 6 users say Thank You to eudamonia for this post:
FutureTrader71 Is a well known trader who I have heard helps many people. His charity is about helping Arabs immigrant integrate into the American society there is a lot of prejudice against Arabs probably this is why he omit his personal information
This is nothing to do with his ability as a trader and a educator he excel in this field
Now going back to my initial question on this thread I think I have the answer: if you take his response as a concept he is right you have 50% chance for win or loss but if you take it as hard statistic the way I understood it is wrong. I wish Big Mike will invite him to clear up this mess
I just watched it, an excellent webinar. Given how much was in it, I don't know why people are focusing exclusively on one question.
Anyway, in the example he gives of guessing whether a male or female exits a room, he states that the sample size contains 83% women, but that we don't know anything about the percentages behind the door. And as soon as people start exiting, the sample will change accordingly.
It seems a pretty good analogy for a trading edge. I wouldn't trade without a positive expectancy, but it's only an expectancy, not a guarantee.
The following user says Thank You to futuretrader for this post:
I think what FT71 is saying with his quip about 50/50 is essentially that "past returns are no guarantee of future results". He's in effect saying that there are two possibilities, each with a history of occurrence, but that the next sequence of market events does not know that history and is not effected by it. I think its his way of saying "anything can happen" in the next moment. His example of the historical probability changing as each new event is added to the string of events clarifies his meaning. Obviously if you believe that you can actually determine (in the context of trading) the probability of X happening given that A, B, and C just happened then you will disagree with his statement. I don't think FT71 believes it is possible to assign a specific probability to X, no matter the history of A, B, and C (in the context of trading).
As an analogy - take his 99 males and 1 female in a room - the door opens and a person walks through, what are the chances they're male vs. female? What if the door is only open enough to let a very thin person through, what if the door is next to the side of the room the female is on? What if at that specific time, all the men are asleep?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty. - Frank Herbert
The following user says Thank You to Surly for this post:
ooooh - cloak & dagger. Maybe the evil anon vendors are ganging up.
The name is Peter Davies. Tel +66 81 810 9588. My name is actually all over my web site.... I can give you my address, you know - if you want to send me a valentines card...
In terms of charity, you wouldn't be able to use the charities paypal account anyway bcoz you wouldn't know who you'd sold to. So - it makes sense that payments go to his company paypal account. I don't know any other way you'd do it.
The following 2 users say Thank You to DionysusToast for this post: