Market Discussions

I choose to interpret the lower volume of bond offerings and IPO launches as a "cultural" change in EVE, meaning more and more people are either borrowing privately from friends or just buying PLEX and liquidating them for ISK.

The second choice is especially attractive in that it requires virtually no effort in terms of game time expended and/or learning the "ins and outs" of the industrial and financial aspects of the game. In other words..."instant gratification". Go figure.

"WORK", dear OP, is a four letter word.

That's odd, as you can easily check my thread for some RL trades posted while I was doing them.

Just because you have no idea how some things work does not mean they don't work.

you see, i have cloaked my mystical "these shapes mean this incredibly vauge thing that is said in such a way that it can never actually be wrong, and once something happens it turns out that was what was predicted" voodoo in New And Exciting Buzzwords

oh and then i compared it to "profit based off the spread between buy and sell orders", a thing that actually makes sense, because i hope you don't realize one makes sense and the other is nonsense

as much as i enjoy mocking your entrails reading in eve online it is vaugely horrifying that someone would have their life savings riding on their belief that you have A System for predicting when red will come up

you have made your bed and sooner or later you're going to be blaming the cursed bad luck that somehow made your system fail against all odds but it would be quite unfortunate if you lured another sucker into Take Your Life Savings And Always Bet On Black and such a fate befell them

No guarantee happens because of several factors:

1) A mechanicistic vision of the markets. Some even very famous people, even Nobel Prize scientist believe in easily misproven practical matters. The most famous is the belief in "brownian motion". It did not serve them well, see LTCM "dream Nobel team" failure.
Markets *use* the so called price discovery with brownian motion but with a layered and sometimes orderly structure driving it.

Traders spot the few times these orderly structures form and also know which of those few structures statistically (say 70% of the time) do what. It's more similar to a Monte Carlo driven session than a precise math one.

2) Since the results are based on statistics, there are statistic series involved. A 70% probability event can hit or miss multiple times in a row, some times even 10. This can easily ruin someone who does not know money management well.

3) Money management or position management is the skill at stopping losses early and letting profits run. Despite common belief, "guessing" the trade is actually easy. A 70% winning chance should make most averagely intelligent investors rich quick, no?
But... nope. One could be handed a 90% chance trade and still lose money BAD on it.

The current times just make this worse, because many markets became "range bound", that is price returns back on its own tracks again and again and this spelled ruin for many.
Money management is a nerve wrecking activity that many don't master well.

4) It's hard to be "lucky" in the markets. My own empirical evidence based on years of markets study suggests that a "coin toss" making someone randomly pick buy vs sell on any given moment leads to at least 80% chance of entering a trade that will turn into a loss.
Now, some traders perform dozens of operations a day, how could they survive a day with such a rate of potential losses if they acted at random?

5) Past performance is never guarantee for future results, because the markets never repeat again. They are auto-similar and repeat the same very few figures again and again but always with tiny or large differences.

Since the dawn of exchanges, there have never been two identical trades. You can't by definition yield consistent results if the premises keep changing.
Furthermore, the total mass of the funds, banks etc. as a whole will never, ever beat the markets. The markets, are self optimizing, and also self-repairing in case one of their components underperforms (i.e. a company can be replaced in an index if they stop being within the top ones).
The total mass of funds, banks etc, basically hit a glass ceiling mechanism similar to what traders see once their NAV goes beyond a certain limit: they become more and more correlated with the markets. Warren Buffet has also talked about this effect in the past.
What is possible instead is for relatively minor entities to profit from the markets momentum caused inertia. This is also how some of the first High Frequency Trading computers would make money (you do believe HFT makes money right?)
It's possible to arbitrage liquidity within a single market in a conceptually not dissimilar way to how arbitrators (and other HFT algos) do for different markets.

Look at EvE. A region trader makes profit because regions don't immediately align their prices (due to having to carry the stuff across), that's an inefficiency that's been exploited for a profit.
Likewise, a small trader (whose weight is irrelevant vs the global markets) will make a profit because a market cannot immediately steer its direction. Its momentum causes an inertia and that delta between current price vs "perfect price" is the profit. The effects of that inertia are displayed by certain recurring shapes forming on charts.
The bigger the trading entity, the more comparable their own (assets) momentum slow down and correlate with the markets and thus their profitability plummets.
Add some internal institution inefficiencies, fees, commissions etc. and you get a below benchmark performance even with no mistake.

That's a funny world where you live, whose foundations are based on random and luck.

Now I go to bed, well knowing that my bed's past performance has no relevance to future success, so this night it could eat me whole. Or an earthquake could swallow my bed.

Because you know, it's all equally random and confused. And brownian. So brownian.

Monday I'll wake up at 6.30am and engage RL trading with my random irrelevance to my future and bring the food home for another day.

It's cool when random makes you feed.

yeah, this is basically proving my point

"i would hate if that were true, so its not"

things where skill are involved, past performance has relevance to future success

in finance, past performance does not have relevance to future success

ergo, skill is not involved

This thread was constructive, then it turned into an MD thread you see.

this is nothing but "i use a different magical word! sure, most magic doesn't work but this is Blood Magic, which does!"

your results are nothing more than one result of a slightly weighted coin out of millions

i mean just look at this utter nonsense:


this is so obviously, so clearly, nonsense that it's clear that things in your head are broken beyond repair.

there are two possible interpretations: either that flipping a coin for "buy" or "sell" has an 80% chance of being wrong (this is so obviously not true that i won't even bother rebutting it) or that if you're flipping a coin over the course of a day you have an 80% chance of being wrong at least once (duh)

since the second is so clearly not an argument (it would be unlikely to not get at least one wrong if you're doing 5 or more) we have VV, someone who claims to have the first idea what he's talking about, say something that is so incredibly obviously wrong based on pure statistics (there is no set of probabilities that "buy" or "sell" is the right answer where flipping a coin to pick doesn't get the right choice half the time. you see, because one is right and one is wrong and you pick the one that is right about half the time because you pick both sides about half the time)

so basically you're claiming that basic laws of probability do not apply in order to rationalize your voodoo, saying something so obviously wrong that even a third grader would know it was wrong

good work, titan of industry

a pit is filled with white and black marbles. you don't know how many of each. if you call which one you will pick correctly, you get $10, if you call it incorrectly, you lose $10.

you have $1000, and play this game 100 times, picking randomly which color you believe you will pick

on average how many calls do you get correct - knowing that the chances that when you pick a marble it's a white marble is probably different than the chance you pick a black marble

vv, a person who claims to know things about math, believes you get 20% correct

how many people believe him