It's not randomness is the problem, it's the negative expectancy.
You can have randomness, with positive expectancy, a random walk with a drift or trend, where the mean , the variance and the covariance (of the lag) is constant, but the random variable is random inside these boundaries.
For example a price going up in this way would be easy to trade and make money from. The closest thing that resembles this are probably financial bonds, but only if their interest rate is not negative, haha.
Indeed, and the casino wins the most eventually. The distribution of wins in a casino is always a power curve, most people end up losing smaller amounts, but a few people win big.
That is why the casinos show only the top 10 winners, because there are probably no more than that... :D
You need to find game with less randomness :)
It's not randomness is the problem, it's the negative expectancy.
You can have randomness, with positive expectancy, a random walk with a drift or trend, where the mean , the variance and the covariance (of the lag) is constant, but the random variable is random inside these boundaries.
For example a price going up in this way would be easy to trade and make money from. The closest thing that resembles this are probably financial bonds, but only if their interest rate is not negative, haha.
http://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/euro-bund (monthly chart)
I agree. Was too quick in answering. Sorry.
Yes. But that is true on average. There can always emerge some lucky people who can win big. But if they continue after that, they will lose it all
Yeah but many must loose for a few to win.
Indeed, and the casino wins the most eventually. The distribution of wins in a casino is always a power curve, most people end up losing smaller amounts, but a few people win big.
That is why the casinos show only the top 10 winners, because there are probably no more than that... :D
yes very correct statement.