Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: ajtj99 who wrote (41144)	11/21/2002 11:17:57 PM
From: Joseph Silent	Read Replies (1) of 52237

no more than 3% upside potential AT, I don't really want to butt in, but I'd like to suggest that its best not stated as a theorem (a definite). It's based on data and, as such, is empirical. It may have a high likelihood of occurring based on data (perhaps as high as 100%) but it cannot be guaranteed to occur in the future. A rather simple but, hopefully, explanatory example is the following. Suppose that on your daily evening mile-long walks, your legs have never buckled under you and made you fall on your behind. If you use that data to predict the probability that your legs will not buckle before you complete walking a mile tomorrow or next week, you'll get the probability to be zero (since your data says that your legs have never buckled before). You must realize, however, that there is no guarantee that your legs won't buckle tomorrow or next week (and I'm really not using age as the reason). A single new data-point can change an empirically defined probability 1 event to an event with probability less than 1. So, even though you may be right in this case and the next one thousand, there can be no "definites". :)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next