<< <i>It'll hit $50 eventually, but a normal and temporary pull-back's due.
People have to get used to the higher prices, until they no longer feel "high." >>
Obviously you nailed it here as this is the way the real world works.
This is a special situation and we may be on the verge of a buying panic. Essentially this is caused by a sudden and dramatic reevaluation of the percieved worth of somthing brought about by either a sudden recognition of its scarcity or of its importance. This won't affect everyone at once of course like the way a bull market works but it will affect enough indiv- iduals to cause sharply rising prices and then more people pile on. The world hasn't seen a good buying panic in some time now but one of these days we're likely see the grandaddy of all panics in silver.
We're through all the resistance so the day could happen at any time. There is no one sit- ting on an accumulation of silver purchased for over $38 just waiting to break even.
Would you care to wager a 1 oz silver bar on that statement? >>
Bet ya a silver maple against your silver bar that by midnight July 1, 2011 silver will have hit $50 an ounce. If it hits before July 1, PM for mailing instructions. If it hasn't hit by July 1 PM me your mailing address and remind me of the wager. Deal? >>
That's one bet I hope to loose.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
In early 2008, when silver was around $21 and climbing, I remember how determined I was that silver was a good investment even though it was "high". I already had a sizable position, and I added to it again and again. It was "high" at that time. Then it got hit, hard - down to $9.00.
The Lesson? Don't expect to make a big gain just because you buy into a silver market that's high and appears to be going higher. Did I buy high? Yes. Did I sell at the bottom? No. Did it go back up? Yes.
Buy the stuff as a way to get out of dollars and into something fungible. Sell when you need to sell, but not until.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Every stat has to be based on a set of data and some basic assumptions. To give out probabilities with no backup is meaningless to anyone who happens to be looking at those conclusions.
Silver's on a run today +$1.40. Pretty heady stuff.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I know one thing. We may not make it to $50 on the date indicated but it appears we will be damn close. In fact, I believe we will be alot closer than what the first "no voter" anticipated.
"...To give out probabilities with no backup is meaningless to anyone who happens to be looking at those conclusions..."
Without giving away the exact process, MY calculation is based on a model that incorporates all past day to day price movements over a 1 year period for the underlying futures contract, the average true range (ATR) of each day to day movement, the standard deviation of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum averages of those ATR's (both over the sample period as well as over an "n" day period (where "n" = the remaining trading days) and certain other proprietary weighting factors.
BTW, I trade commodity portfolios both for myself and for hedge funds and use both my personal model as well as some of the ones they built to come up with a consensus probability estimate.
Certainly one could render a slightly more precise estimate if one considered the life of the contract (instead of just one year) OR only considering the data for just the front month contracts over the sample period (but backtesting has proven by only an infitessimaly negligible - and statistically insignificant - amount).
As I said, if anyone has a better calculation please correct me.
Without giving away the exact process, MY calculation is based on a model that incorporates all past day to day price movements over a 1 year period for the underlying futures contract, the average true range (ATR) of each day to day movement, the standard deviation of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum averages of those ATR's (both over the sample period as well as over an "n" day period (where "n" = the remaining trading days) and certain other proprietary weighting factors
Like he said, "Simple Statistics, Perry" !!
Blaise Pascal would be proud of you! I am more of a WAG type of guy.
Thank you for giving some insight to your ciphering, BR. My point was, and you are obviously equipped to do it - that in order to make any sense of a probability, it's also important to know some of the parameters in the model. Otherwise, there is nothing to understand, nothing to question, and nothing to debate. The math doesn't leave any doubts, but the model construct is only a construct. Yours is based on price action and timing and I'm sure that it helps your trading.
I don't discount any variable that might show up, regardless of whether it's in a particular model or not. And that's my other point.
Your model shows a decrease in probability after today's action. I don't understand that, especially since momentum appears to play a part in your numbers.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
If we're not in the buying panic yet we might be by Friday morning.
Watch for a $2.50 gap higher for confirmation.
If this is it the size of the gaps will mean nothing about how high it's going to go. They'll only provide a clue about how fast. This could be over in mere weeks.
"I don't discount any variable that might show up, regardless of whether it's in a particular model or not. And that's my other point.
Your model shows a decrease in probability after today's action. I don't understand that, especially since momentum appears to play a part in your numbers."
True that not every possible variable would be included. e.g. a mistaken (or intentional) launch of an ICBM from Russia on New York (or many other even slightly more likely politcal/world events) isn't factored in.
As for momemtum (& it's factored in heavily with the weighting algorithim I use), but becomes less & less of a factor as "n" approaches 0 (notice how much higher the prob's were earlier today).
<< <i>Without giving away the exact process, MY calculation is based on a model that incorporates all past day to day price movements over a 1 year period for the underlying futures contract, the average true range (ATR) of each day to day movement, the standard deviation of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum averages of those ATR's (both over the sample period as well as over an "n" day period (where "n" = the remaining trading days) and certain other proprietary weighting factors
Like he said, "Simple Statistics, Perry" !! >>
Garbage in. Garbage out. As soon as you start giving us probabilities computed out to a hundreth of a percent, you lose all credibility. The price of precious metals are greatly influenced by world events so unless you have a really good crystal ball, your numbers are nothing more than a wild guess.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
If you can't provide a BETTER estimate shut your pie hole.
Guess Wilkepedia "loses all credibility" by going to hundreths of a percent as well:
"About 68.27% of the values lie within 1 standard deviation of the mean. Similarly, about 95.45% of the values lie within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Nearly all (99.73%) of the values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean."
3 sigmas don't automatically adjust for momentum or timing - your model has to incorporate that - and the assumptions you make will influence the result.
Perry is correct about world events and their effect upon market psychology - and it doesn't have to be a rogue nuke hit in a city center. Any kind of unanticipated news can trigger a market run right now - I don't see how you can model that very well.
While writing this post, I went looking for Nassim Talib's name, came across his Black Swan book online and started reading. Now I've got to have it. Dang, it's interesting reading, and I just read a few pages! I came across his explanation of "the triplet of opacity" which is kinda like the point I was trying to make here.
To wit: - the illusion of understanding or how everyone thinks he knows what is going on in a world that is more complicated (or random) than they realize - - retrospective distortion, or how we can assess matters only after the fact, as if they were in a rearview mirror, (history seems clearer in a history book than in the empirical reality), and - the overevaluation of factual information and the handicap of authoritative and learned people, particularly when they create categories - when they "Platonify".
This guy writes very well, and I've been meaning to get his book. Well, gotta go run some errands (and see if the book is at Barnes & Noble.) Later.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I agree 110% about world event risk (WER) and its capacity to effectuate a (perhaps) 10 sigma (???) move on an underlying and in NO WAY EVER led anyone to believe my model was anything other than a PURELY statistical one which DOESN'T factor in such risk (although a 10 sigma move based on some unidentified WER has by definition far less than a .01% probability of occurring). Thus all the WER's are in the tail (of the curve of a normal distribution) - i.e. would require more than a 3 sigma move - & have WAY less than a .27% prob. of occurring and don't in any meaningful way "move the needle" so to speak.
I guess Zambia could announce a silver find greater 500% greater than all known silver to date (mined plus believed to be still in mines) which would have a SEVERE bearish effect or some equal magnitude event might have an opposite effect. The problem is though, from a modeling aspect, these possibilities have a near zero probability of occurring and thus only a miniscule effect on a prediction of an underlyting's future price (thus they're all in the tail out past 3 sigmas).
While it's easy to point out that a model is meaningless, weak, without merit, etc., merely for the lack of inclusion of WER, frankly I'm unaware of ANY model ANYWHERE that DOES in fact explicitly incorporate such WER insofar as reducing it to a number. Does anyone know of one?
I think a better approach is to provide a model with the results that come with the caveat that the model was purely statistical and DID NOT incorporate WER and let the users adjust the model's results based on their OWN perception of WER.
As for the stitistics, one can ONLY use the PAST data to estimate (i.e. come up w/probabilities) of future events.
I've still not heard of a better way to ACTUALLY come up with a REAL NUMERICAL PROBABILITY (that at least those with a grasp of mathematics/statistics can agree on as to its basic underlying soundness of method) of the future price of silver at some given point in time (or anything else for that matter).
Rick, the world isn't static and neither are the probabilities. Neither are the WERs as you call them. "Past results are no guarantee of future performance" - how many times have I read that one?
I'm sure we can have a discussion about whether silver will hit or exceed $50 by the end of next week with, or without probability statements - but I'm not so sure I'd ever want to hang my hat on a probability estimate if I were dueling with Goldman Sachs and their flash trading program in the silver futures market.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>I agree 110% about world event risk (WER) and its capacity to effectuate a (perhaps) 10 sigma (???) move on an underlying and in NO WAY EVER led anyone to believe my model was anything other than a PURELY statistical one which DOESN'T factor in such risk (although a 10 sigma move based on some unidentified WER has by definition far less than a .01% probability of occurring). Thus all the WER's are in the tail (of the curve of a normal distribution) - i.e. would require more than a 3 sigma move - & have WAY less than a .30% prob. of occurring and don't in any meaningful way "move the needle" so to speak.
I guess Zambia could announce a silver find greater 500% greater than all known silver to date (mined plus believed to be still in mines) which would have a SEVERE bearish effect or some equal magnitude event might have an opposite effect. The problem is though, from a modeling aspect, these possibilities have a near zero probability of occurring and thus only a miniscule effect on a prediction of an underlyting's future price (thus they're all in the tail out past 3 sigmas).
While it's easy to point out that a model is meaningless, weak, without merit, etc., merely for the lack of inclusion of WER, frankly I'm unaware of ANY model ANYWHERE that DOES in fact explicitly incorporate such WER insofar as reducing it to a number. Does anyone know of one?
I think a better approach is to provide a model with the results that come with the caveat that the model was purely statistical and DID NOT incorporate WER and let the users adjust the model's results based on their OWN perception of WER.
As for the stitistics, one can ONLY use the PAST data to estimate (i.e. come up w/probabilities) of future events.
I've still not heard of a better way to ACTUALLY come up with a REAL NUMERICAL PROBABILITY (that at least those with a grasp of mathematics/statistics can agree on as to its basic underlying soundness of method) of the future price of silver at some given point in time (or anything else for that matter). >>
Frankly I'm a seat of the pants sort of statitician. Sure that's a pretty poor way to make an estimation perhaps but ultimately there usually isn't a meaningful way to estimate real world events that can't be quantified. Weather beyond 7 days can't be predicted with any accuracy because weather is chaotic and to a real extent everything else is as well.
I voted yes in this thread but I was really just paying devil's advocate. I didn't think there was over a 2% chance initially and by my first post I was down to about 1.5%. But it's go- ing up now not because I expect that silver is worth mnore and people will come to believe it or because it's going up so fast that it looks easy. I'm up close to 3% because every day that goes by with these huge gains puts us closer to a buying panic that I've long believed was inevitable in silver. It's not a question of whether the price is likely to get so hign in so short a time, it's a question of when the buying panic begins.
If there were 33 worlds exactly like this one I think that in one of them silver will be $50 by Tuesday. If it does then look for $75 the next week.
Good question....will silver hit $50 by April 26th....I will say that silver will reach $50.00 before the expiration of April 26th however, I think it may not settle above $49.99 after the close of the trading day.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly."
I still do not think that silver will hit $50 this year. It might go up to mid $48's or $49 before it get smacked down hard. It is going to get ugly on the way down in my opinion. The high is currently at $46.77 (Kitco quote only) but it will not make it to $50 and it will get smacked down to the lows earlier this year. The reason that I am saying this because it seems to me that this upmove is too far too fast IMO. Look out below because that first silver step downward will be a doozy.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a '70's silver art bar expert but I try my best to play one on the Internet.
Of course what seems to be overlooked repeatedly is that past prices embody (and fully price in) 100% of ALL PAST WER and a model that incorporates past prices ALSO by definition implicitly incorporates ALL PAST WER effect on prices. Where the opinions would thus seemingly diverge is whether, on balance, future WER will be about the same as past WER or will differ significantly.
Anyone that thinks there is NO WAY to predict mathematically the probability of what the price of something will be at some point in the future is simply uninformed. Of course there will be errors but the magnitude of those errors (over time & over an ever approaching infinite number of trials and ever increasing sample size) is what gives you a confidence level in the range of your predictions.
Can there be a once in a century or millenium event that moves the needle 10 standard deviations? Of course. Is it likely? No. Does that event have more than a .27% (i.e. less than 3 sigma) chance of occurring? No. Does the probability of that event move the needle (i.e. change the predictive value) in a meaningful way? No. Do people that trade regularly want to know with some degree of confidence the probability of a commodity going to a certain price by a certain date? Absolutely. Is the probability of getting to that certain price by that certain date important? Of course. Do MANY calculate it OR accept the calculations of many of the big commodity brokerages software? Yes.
I'm sorry those that see no value or merit in the process simply do not understand. It's my failure if I haven't been able to explain it better.
Fastrudy, are you saying it is impossible to determine the probability of whether silver will hit 50 by close on April 26th?
Comments
If this holds then look up above; there is no more resistance.
<< <i>We closed above $38.
If this holds then look up above; there is no more resistance. >>
We closed at $39.28
as long as the fix does not erupt during the night shift.
or let them run. One must balance risk, rewards and long term
goals. I sold because of a personal issue, but I see no problem
with people who keep stacking, as long as they understand the
potential risks. Some of the really great fortunes were made by
folks who bought and held unto things like PM, stock and real estate.
Do what you are comfortable with, and the best of luck no matter
what you decide to do.
Camelot
People have to get used to the higher prices, until they no longer feel "high."
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>It'll hit $50 eventually, but a normal and temporary pull-back's due.
People have to get used to the higher prices, until they no longer feel "high." >>
Obviously you nailed it here as this is the way the real world works.
This is a special situation and we may be on the verge of a buying panic. Essentially this
is caused by a sudden and dramatic reevaluation of the percieved worth of somthing brought
about by either a sudden recognition of its scarcity or of its importance. This won't affect
everyone at once of course like the way a bull market works but it will affect enough indiv-
iduals to cause sharply rising prices and then more people pile on. The world hasn't seen
a good buying panic in some time now but one of these days we're likely see the grandaddy
of all panics in silver.
We're through all the resistance so the day could happen at any time. There is no one sit-
ting on an accumulation of silver purchased for over $38 just waiting to break even.
POLL Prob 19.89% (36/145)
Actual prob of hitting 50: .27%
Actual prob of being at or above 50: .12%
Hi Ho Silver - YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!
I say $50 by May 15th, 2011 - with the help of Bolivia.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A bit too early. Will do so by July 1. >>
Would you care to wager a 1 oz silver bar on that statement? >>
Bet ya a silver maple against your silver bar that by midnight July 1, 2011 silver will have hit $50 an ounce. If it hits before July 1, PM for mailing instructions. If it hasn't hit by July 1 PM me your mailing address and remind me of the wager. Deal? >>
That's one bet I hope to loose.
The Lesson? Don't expect to make a big gain just because you buy into a silver market that's high and appears to be going higher. Did I buy high? Yes. Did I sell at the bottom? No. Did it go back up? Yes.
Buy the stuff as a way to get out of dollars and into something fungible. Sell when you need to sell, but not until.
I knew it would happen.
POLL prob: 21.4286% (42Y/154N)
Prob of hitting 50: 0%
Prob of finishing above 50: 0%
As of 10:27a CST 4/20/11:
Prob of hitting 50: 14.12%
Prob of closing above 50: 6.61%
<< <i>Just hit 45.
As of 10:27a CST 4/20/11:
Prob of hitting 50: 14.12%
Prob of closing above 50: 6.61% >>
Where do you get your numbers? Do you just pull them out of your.............er, never mind.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Do you have a different calculation?
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
Silver's on a run today +$1.40. Pretty heady stuff.
I knew it would happen.
Without giving away the exact process, MY calculation is based on a model that incorporates all past day to day price movements over a 1 year period for the underlying futures contract, the average true range (ATR) of each day to day movement, the standard deviation of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum averages of those ATR's (both over the sample period as well as over an "n" day period (where "n" = the remaining trading days) and certain other proprietary weighting factors.
BTW, I trade commodity portfolios both for myself and for hedge funds and use both my personal model as well as some of the ones they built to come up with a consensus probability estimate.
Certainly one could render a slightly more precise estimate if one considered the life of the contract (instead of just one year) OR only considering the data for just the front month contracts over the sample period (but backtesting has proven by only an infitessimaly negligible - and statistically insignificant - amount).
As I said, if anyone has a better calculation please correct me.
btw: As of 12:53p CST 4/20/11:
Prob of hitting 50: 11.82%
Prob of closing above 50: 5.52%
Like he said, "Simple Statistics, Perry" !!
Blaise Pascal would be proud of you! I am more of a WAG type of guy.
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
I don't discount any variable that might show up, regardless of whether it's in a particular model or not. And that's my other point.
Your model shows a decrease in probability after today's action. I don't understand that, especially since momentum appears to play a part in your numbers.
I knew it would happen.
If we're not in the buying panic yet we might be by Friday morning.
Watch for a $2.50 gap higher for confirmation.
If this is it the size of the gaps will mean nothing about how high it's going to go. They'll
only provide a clue about how fast. This could be over in mere weeks.
Your model shows a decrease in probability after today's action. I don't understand that, especially since momentum appears to play a part in your numbers."
True that not every possible variable would be included. e.g. a mistaken (or intentional) launch of an ICBM from Russia on New York (or many other even slightly more likely politcal/world events) isn't factored in.
As for momemtum (& it's factored in heavily with the weighting algorithim I use), but becomes less & less of a factor as "n" approaches 0 (notice how much higher the prob's were earlier today).
FYI, as of 9:34p CST 4/20 (w/SIK1 @ 41.91 & n=3):
Prob of hitting 50: .16%
Prob of closing above 50: .08%
I knew it would happen.
Silver at 46.34. Prob of hitting 50 between .16% & 1.7%
It seems to me that if they are using pricing models, the $50 mark is just an arbitrary number.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Without giving away the exact process, MY calculation is based on a model that incorporates all past day to day price movements over a 1 year period for the underlying futures contract, the average true range (ATR) of each day to day movement, the standard deviation of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum of those ATR's, the minimum & maximum averages of those ATR's (both over the sample period as well as over an "n" day period (where "n" = the remaining trading days) and certain other proprietary weighting factors
Like he said, "Simple Statistics, Perry" !! >>
Garbage in. Garbage out.
As soon as you start giving us probabilities computed out to a hundreth of a percent, you lose all credibility. The price of precious metals are greatly influenced by world events so unless you have a really good crystal ball, your numbers are nothing more than a wild guess.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Another For Perry
If you can't provide a BETTER estimate shut your pie hole.
Guess Wilkepedia "loses all credibility" by going to hundreths of a percent as well:
"About 68.27% of the values lie within 1 standard deviation of the mean. Similarly, about 95.45% of the values lie within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Nearly all (99.73%) of the values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean."
Perry is correct about world events and their effect upon market psychology - and it doesn't have to be a rogue nuke hit in a city center. Any kind of unanticipated news can trigger a market run right now - I don't see how you can model that very well.
While writing this post, I went looking for Nassim Talib's name, came across his Black Swan book online and started reading. Now I've got to have it. Dang, it's interesting reading, and I just read a few pages! I came across his explanation of "the triplet of opacity" which is kinda like the point I was trying to make here.
To wit:
- the illusion of understanding or how everyone thinks he knows what is going on in a world that is more complicated (or random) than they realize -
- retrospective distortion, or how we can assess matters only after the fact, as if they were in a rearview mirror, (history seems clearer in a history book than in the empirical reality), and
- the overevaluation of factual information and the handicap of authoritative and learned people, particularly when they create categories - when they "Platonify".
This guy writes very well, and I've been meaning to get his book. Well, gotta go run some errands (and see if the book is at Barnes & Noble.) Later.
I knew it would happen.
I guess Zambia could announce a silver find greater 500% greater than all known silver to date (mined plus believed to be still in mines) which would have a SEVERE bearish effect or some equal magnitude event might have an opposite effect. The problem is though, from a modeling aspect, these possibilities have a near zero probability of occurring and thus only a miniscule effect on a prediction of an underlyting's future price (thus they're all in the tail out past 3 sigmas).
While it's easy to point out that a model is meaningless, weak, without merit, etc., merely for the lack of inclusion of WER, frankly I'm unaware of ANY model ANYWHERE that DOES in fact explicitly incorporate such WER insofar as reducing it to a number. Does anyone know of one?
I think a better approach is to provide a model with the results that come with the caveat that the model was purely statistical and DID NOT incorporate WER and let the users adjust the model's results based on their OWN perception of WER.
As for the stitistics, one can ONLY use the PAST data to estimate (i.e. come up w/probabilities) of future events.
I've still not heard of a better way to ACTUALLY come up with a REAL NUMERICAL PROBABILITY (that at least those with a grasp of mathematics/statistics can agree on as to its basic underlying soundness of method) of the future price of silver at some given point in time (or anything else for that matter).
I'm sure we can have a discussion about whether silver will hit or exceed $50 by the end of next week with, or without probability statements - but I'm not so sure I'd ever want to hang my hat on a probability estimate if I were dueling with Goldman Sachs and their flash trading program in the silver futures market.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I agree 110% about world event risk (WER) and its capacity to effectuate a (perhaps) 10 sigma (???) move on an underlying and in NO WAY EVER led anyone to believe my model was anything other than a PURELY statistical one which DOESN'T factor in such risk (although a 10 sigma move based on some unidentified WER has by definition far less than a .01% probability of occurring). Thus all the WER's are in the tail (of the curve of a normal distribution) - i.e. would require more than a 3 sigma move - & have WAY less than a .30% prob. of occurring and don't in any meaningful way "move the needle" so to speak.
I guess Zambia could announce a silver find greater 500% greater than all known silver to date (mined plus believed to be still in mines) which would have a SEVERE bearish effect or some equal magnitude event might have an opposite effect. The problem is though, from a modeling aspect, these possibilities have a near zero probability of occurring and thus only a miniscule effect on a prediction of an underlyting's future price (thus they're all in the tail out past 3 sigmas).
While it's easy to point out that a model is meaningless, weak, without merit, etc., merely for the lack of inclusion of WER, frankly I'm unaware of ANY model ANYWHERE that DOES in fact explicitly incorporate such WER insofar as reducing it to a number. Does anyone know of one?
I think a better approach is to provide a model with the results that come with the caveat that the model was purely statistical and DID NOT incorporate WER and let the users adjust the model's results based on their OWN perception of WER.
As for the stitistics, one can ONLY use the PAST data to estimate (i.e. come up w/probabilities) of future events.
I've still not heard of a better way to ACTUALLY come up with a REAL NUMERICAL PROBABILITY (that at least those with a grasp of mathematics/statistics can agree on as to its basic underlying soundness of method) of the future price of silver at some given point in time (or anything else for that matter). >>
Frankly I'm a seat of the pants sort of statitician. Sure that's a pretty poor way to make
an estimation perhaps but ultimately there usually isn't a meaningful way to estimate real
world events that can't be quantified. Weather beyond 7 days can't be predicted with any
accuracy because weather is chaotic and to a real extent everything else is as well.
I voted yes in this thread but I was really just paying devil's advocate. I didn't think there
was over a 2% chance initially and by my first post I was down to about 1.5%. But it's go-
ing up now not because I expect that silver is worth mnore and people will come to believe
it or because it's going up so fast that it looks easy. I'm up close to 3% because every day
that goes by with these huge gains puts us closer to a buying panic that I've long believed
was inevitable in silver. It's not a question of whether the price is likely to get so hign in
so short a time, it's a question of when the buying panic begins.
If there were 33 worlds exactly like this one I think that in one of them silver will be $50
by Tuesday. If it does then look for $75 the next week.
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
Past performance is not indicative of future events
your model is meaningless
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
Anyone that thinks there is NO WAY to predict mathematically the probability of what the price of something will be at some point in the future is simply uninformed. Of course there will be errors but the magnitude of those errors (over time & over an ever approaching infinite number of trials and ever increasing sample size) is what gives you a confidence level in the range of your predictions.
Can there be a once in a century or millenium event that moves the needle 10 standard deviations? Of course. Is it likely? No. Does that event have more than a .27% (i.e. less than 3 sigma) chance of occurring? No. Does the probability of that event move the needle (i.e. change the predictive value) in a meaningful way? No. Do people that trade regularly want to know with some degree of confidence the probability of a commodity going to a certain price by a certain date? Absolutely. Is the probability of getting to that certain price by that certain date important? Of course. Do MANY calculate it OR accept the calculations of many of the big commodity brokerages software? Yes.
I'm sorry those that see no value or merit in the process simply do not understand. It's my failure if I haven't been able to explain it better.
Fastrudy, are you saying it is impossible to determine the probability of whether silver will hit 50 by close on April 26th?
Plug In 10 & -10 As The Interval & See What Pops Out
Isn't there a model for that too?
I knew it would happen.
SIK1 @ 47.60
Prob of hitting 50: .23%
Prob of closing above 50: .11%
Just fyi: SIK1 50C now Bid .125/Ask .160 (margin of @ $3,491.10 per contract - ouch to those that went with the poll & odds & sold them).