SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Art of Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Greg S. who wrote (850)1/27/2000 12:48:00 AM
From: Michael G. Potter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10713
 
Greg,

Go onto Usenet to the blackjack news group. There's a bunch of Phd.'s in math there. Post the above post and step back <grin>.

Blackjack odds change with the number of cards played depending on the exact cards played. The math of runs is interesting and everything, but each hand depends on the cards previously played, not if the dealer or the players won.

I think the same applies to investing. The stats look nice, but each coin flip is still 50/50. Even if the last 500 have been heads, it is still 50/50 that the next coin flip will be heads. Now the odds of having a run of 501 in a row are really, really small, but it doesn't matter.

I think that psychology has more bearing on short-term stock movements than statistics.

Michael



To: Greg S. who wrote (850)1/27/2000 1:39:00 AM
From: Sun Tzu  Respond to of 10713
 
As you pointed out, the interdependencies of the win or loss are hard to calculate. So let's focus just on card distribution. Assuming a random distribution of cards, you would expect that in a large enough sample, one third of the cards are high and another third are low cards (and a third in between), as evidenced by playing the whole set. On the other hand, as the subset shrinks, predicting the percentage of the cards that will be in each group becomes impossible (how can I know what the next card will be right off the bat?) [Random Walkers pay attention]. BUT as high cards pile up, the sample size increases. Which in turn increases the odds that the next card will not be a high card.

This is another way of saying that card counting works. If I know all the aces are gone, I don't have to worry about a dealer's blackjack. In my case, rather than aiming for the old fashioned count every card and calculate the odds for the whole deck (which does not work in modern games), I aim to see the odds that say 15% of the deck is extremely out of balance.

Let's see how this applies to investing. While it is very hard to predict the day to day movement of a stock. Every so often it becomes easy to predict the movement of the market as a whole, and in turn the stock in question. Here is a piece from the starting article of this thread which talked about why the market went through a sever correction.

The percentage of stocks that are 2 standard deviations above their 200 day moving average should be ~4% (almost by definition). The market can withstand the overbought situation until this number reaches ~18%. Prior to October '87 this number was ~27%, in the mini-crash of '90 it was ~22% and in the April of '98 it hit the all time high of 35%. Read your stat books and try to calculate how unlikely it is for 35% of your samples to be 2 standard deviations apart from the mean.

In other words I was arguing that reversion to the mean was forcing the market to drop fast and hard (or otherwise thread water for a long long time), to please the gods of probability. The economic issues of the time were just an excuse for this process to happen.

So you see playing blackjack and the market have much in common.

cheers,
ST