Chur!
Would be good to know how Maori valued their retirement village stocks too (before colonisation) on this weekend of deep reflection!
Could provide some valuable insights into OCA!
AHHH HUHUHUHUHUHU!
Printable View
Just my fuzzy logic. But it went to 84 not long ago, psychology would dictate that it will get there again and then there will be resistance to go higher for a bit. Mind you that was cum dividend of 1.5 cents. However I don't think most investors are that mathematically rational.
I am genuinely sorry for my part in upsetting JAK, seriously, why is she so wound up?
Is it not easy to just ignore the thread for a couple of days and then next time you look at it, simply scroll past all the BS and jump back in where it's interesting to you again?
Come on, not that hard, just don't read the posts that are obviously about a topic that annoys you.
Not the end of the world.
Cheers MistaTea, you're right nobody seems to be able to actually provide any evidence against what I'm saying.
Even if BaaBaa has had success with this BS it could be down to luck, no way does he know that it's statistically significant what he claims to be able to do.
BlackPeter has really put their foot in it, by claiming that the last data point predicts the next in some statistically significant way. BaaBaa is smart enough not to go that far even though I asked him to. But ultimately he said the same thing, that prior data points lead to probability for future ones to be statistically related to them.
BaaBaa then messed up by claiming I'm not qualified to speak on the topic, meaning because I haven't tried this rubbish. No logic whatsoever in that claim.
My bets are genuine, happy to type them up into a formal document and use the same online format Buffett used to destroy the hedge funds.
All these gurus need to do is select 100 different companies chart patterns and tell us with each respective one, what comes next.
I'd have to do some work to see whats required for it to be statistically significant, but I know it won't even come down to that close a debate.
They will be destroyed well before that and they know it.
Frustrating thing is I know BaaBaa is smarter than this, the rest I know are not.
And yet $1.40 to 0.80. You can see for yourself if you backtest. You wont but that's ok. I do not feel the need to insult.
People who insult on an anyomous forum usually are projecting their insecurities on to anonymous people they have no knowledge of. There are all types of characters in society. Some good and some bad.
Be good/helpful when we get some more OCA related data to consider.
Not too far away.
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/413972
PS: I quite enjoy the banter. As long as it doesn’t get nasty. There is no need.
Yes I can see that clearly Gunner.
Very good providing me with one example, what I want is 'prove' that this method is statistically significant.
I refuse to even consider that you could be so clueless to thing one example is a back test 'prove'
Yes I am extremely insecure, what of it?
So my fellow 'Gunner' if I can provide one example for you to back test that shows the opposite happening, the cross then a move which is opposite to your theory... WHAT THEN????
I would argue that it was a typo, whereas most of the things I mock stem from a limited proficiency in the English language.
Prove instead of proof is not a typo, there instead of their etc..
If my general command of the language was even 1/10 as bad as you're then I'd admit I waz a hippocrit