Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
xylopia
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 01:21:00 -
[31]
Edited by: xylopia on 04/01/2010 01:21:47
Originally by: Lord XSiV Akita & Co. math is fail. Completely flawed, lacks actual factual numbers, makes wild assumptions and well, is just generally wrong. This is proven by the fact that his propaganda team cries out 'Show us some numbers to dispute...' every time they are contested by anyone with intelligence greater than a rock.
Tell you what, when clock tick-tocks more than enough, and Akita proves to be right, you'll have greater or same magnitude of reputation that only GD's alt currently marked in MD as an epic looser. You can rest assured that you will never be able to step in MD for the rest of your toon's natural life.
Originally by: Lord XSiV 3. 'Contributed to the project...'. You should have qualified those who were participants, either directly or indirectly. You managed to get those contributing directly who lacked math skills while those of us with math skills sat back and profited from the chaos and misdirection. To quote some famous saying 'you couldn't buy this kind of publicity'
I said you need to get outta your mum's base to get real. I've contributed very little by pointing out Moon Map Project, and, unlike you, did my own math independently. The moon map project was done by Sleyn Peade, and then his project was incorporated into Wollari's DOTLAN. Plus there are those who don't want to be indentified tip off number of tech moons in north region. I don't know where you have been, and what you've done other than holding on T2 BPO and some such. Who the f*** are you, really? Originally by: Lord XSiV Well let's be honest here, I don't care what anyone thinks about me after all
I can't believe my sorry eyes right there. A hot-shot of your statue do not care what people think about you?
It becomes clearly obvious everyday that all you and your army of alt are trying to lower tech price to a target price. Keep trying. I'll take a free ride. |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 01:27:00 -
[32]
Originally by: xylopia It becomes clearly obvious everyday that all you and your army of alt are trying to lower tech price to a target price. Keep trying. I'll take a free ride.
Seriously. Let's crash this **** and go for another ride on the tech gravy train.
|
Johanna Outeston
Gallente Universal Development And Security
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 01:46:00 -
[33]
All aboard the Technetium Train, Destination unknown?
|
EvilCheez
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 01:46:00 -
[34]
I'm a little annoyed at the half-assed nature of this poop and scoop.
Akita already put the spreadsheet out. All you had to do was change some numbers around, inflate the moon count, whisper some bizare stuff about alchemy, and point out items that didn't have their full and mp levels raised that much (making them out to be the norm). It would have only taken a couple of man hours to completely retaard the thing.
Then you would have been able to say look at the numbers and most people would have been so damn confused by it all they really would have sold.
It's just such a wasted opportunity.
|
UTRocketman11
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 01:51:00 -
[35]
Tech is crashing! It's gonna hit 10K, for sure this time! Get out while you can!
|
Johanna Outeston
Gallente Universal Development And Security
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 02:34:00 -
[36]
^^ Akita T alt? ^^
|
UTRocketman11
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 03:34:00 -
[37]
Edited by: UTRocketman11 on 04/01/2010 03:36:44
Originally by: Johanna Outeston ^^ Akita T alt? ^^
Nope, interested onlooker. I'm in Texas, as my name kinda shows. He is European, or so I've heard.
edit: I've also been over the math, and he is correct as long as the Tech moon assumption is right.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 03:37:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Johanna Outeston ^^ Akita T alt? ^^
Just remind me how old you said you were again Jo? I'm afraid its showing.
|
Johanna Outeston
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 04:44:00 -
[39]
lol I'm good on a public forum, I'm young enough not to post it. back to the topic at hand. Do you think manipulation to this extent can be done again? An Akita T your current market numbers/prediction back before the patch were all dependent on the manipulation part.
|
UTRocketman11
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 04:57:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Johanna Outeston lol I'm good on a public forum, I'm young enough not to post it. back to the topic at hand. Do you think manipulation to this extent can be done again? An Akita T your current market numbers/prediction back before the patch were all dependent on the manipulation part.
None of the figures come up with in the spread sheets were at all dependent on any manipulations. And while clearly the market numbers are where they are due to speculation, the reason there is so much stockpiled in markets is also due to speculation. It is a double edged sword, and real market behavior won't be known for a couple months. Naturally, this causes a series of steep oscillations in the market.
Really, all this discussion is worthless, and is answered in the other thread, or at least should be debated there. Only time will tell whether production of Tech will be able to exceed demand.
|
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 07:39:00 -
[41]
Originally by: this thread OH GOD THE BUBBLE IS OVER WE'RE ALL GONNA BE POOR TECH WILL GO TO 2K GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN.
P.S. whoever is .01ing my tech buy orders stop that please.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Military Research and Manufacturing Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 08:09:00 -
[42]
Originally by: UTRocketman11 And while clearly the market numbers are where they are due to speculation, the reason there is so much stockpiled in markets is also due to speculation. It is a double edged sword, and real market behavior won't be known for a couple months. Naturally, this causes a series of steep oscillations in the market.
Really, all this discussion is worthless, and is answered in the other thread, or at least should be debated there. Only time will tell whether production of Tech will be able to exceed demand.
Exactly!
Originally by: Akita T this whole game is just me playing with myself
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 09:08:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 04/01/2010 09:09:52
Best way to clear up this confusion would be to
(a) run univariate sensitivity analyses on the most important exogenous vars in the spreadsheet and (b) run a (admittedly pretty big) Monte-Carlo sim of the spreadsheet using "sensible" probability distributions for all exogenous parameters that are only estimated. (best way would be to code this in a way that easily allows any interested party to run the sim with different parameters for the distributions)
The critics are imo right that a model which treats (very rough) estimates as if they were real data is pretty worthless.
They also have a point that Akita T might have experienced a possible conflict of interest due to both providing an influential model to the public and being himself engaged in Dominion speculation - however, the peer review in the "Dominion market analysis" thread should (hopefully) have cleared any willful distortion.
--
"The public may not fully understand precisely what auditors do or how we do it, but they care that we exist because it provides them the confidence they so badly need and want." |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 09:15:00 -
[44]
Hey it reminds me of RL trading.
A large bunch of idiots "news trading" and "speculating" and then when something goes wrong, they come cry momma and accuse everyone except themselves for their stupidity.
Speculating is bad, in game like in RL.
Except if you are the one who started the "news" of course.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Dingo Skullcrusher
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 11:41:00 -
[45]
wonder why nobody noticed the little suspicious skull on her portrait picture. enjoy your loss everyone, i know i enjoyed not losing anything.
|
Krans Hopeson
Hypercube Ventures
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 16:07:00 -
[46]
Well, let's all be grown-ups here and apply Mathematics to the problem. It's not good enough to say, "Akita's numbers are only estimates! Therefore his conclusions are made of fail! Lulz!" Instead you need to show that the measurement uncertainty propagated through his analysis is sufficiently large to make his conclusions unreliable.
Until you (Lord Xsiv and fan club) bring something to the table that's more substantial than a butthurt ad hominem argument backed up by error-ridden "mathematics" barely worthy of the name, I think I'll stick with Akita's analysis.
The mathematical techniques you need to prove your point exist -- go look them up! I'll be waiting. -- "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask." |
Krans Hopeson
Hypercube Ventures
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 16:16:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton Best way to clear up this confusion would be to
(a) run univariate sensitivity analyses on the most important exogenous vars in the spreadsheet and (b) run a (admittedly pretty big) Monte-Carlo sim of the spreadsheet using "sensible" probability distributions for all exogenous parameters that are only estimated. (best way would be to code this in a way that easily allows any interested party to run the sim with different parameters for the distributions)
Hmm. I'd go for a multivariate analytical approach, myself -- the T2 materials market is big enough that most parameters can be assumed to obey Gaussian distributions, and it'd be easier than setting up a Monte-Carlo sim, since if it's only technetium prices that you're interested in you eliminate almost all of the outputs and most of the inputs. Furthermore, it seems to me that the kind of errors Lord Xsiv etc. suggest are present would be much greater than the alchemy contribution, so you could eliminate it, further simplifying the model. Maybe I'll get my pen and paper out and try and work it to a first-order approximation -- could be interesting.
The method using measurement uncertainty that I suggested in my previous post is simpler, but if Akita's detractors were correct would be more than sufficient to prove their point; they're talking gross errors. -- "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask." |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 02:42:00 -
[48]
What's amazing is that Akita posted well before the patch, but nothing significant happened at all until the patch actually hit. (Which in my mind rules out this forum as having any significant effect on prices).
Anyone can easily predict that when a material increases requirements suddenly, the price is going to spike, the bit that is unpredictable, is how high, and for how long before it drops (as it certainly will), and how low it gets again before stabilizing.
There isn't any maths that will tell you this with any degree of accuracy, as in the end it is all influenced by decisions players make.
|
Lord XSiV
Amarr Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 03:28:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Lord XSiV on 05/01/2010 03:29:12
Originally by: Krans Hopeson
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton Best way to clear up this confusion would be to
(a) run univariate sensitivity analyses on the most important exogenous vars in the spreadsheet and (b) run a (admittedly pretty big) Monte-Carlo sim of the spreadsheet using "sensible" probability distributions for all exogenous parameters that are only estimated. (best way would be to code this in a way that easily allows any interested party to run the sim with different parameters for the distributions)
Hmm. I'd go for a multivariate analytical approach, myself -- the T2 materials market is big enough that most parameters can be assumed to obey Gaussian distributions, and it'd be easier than setting up a Monte-Carlo sim, since if it's only technetium prices that you're interested in you eliminate almost all of the outputs and most of the inputs. Furthermore, it seems to me that the kind of errors Lord Xsiv etc. suggest are present would be much greater than the alchemy contribution, so you could eliminate it, further simplifying the model. Maybe I'll get my pen and paper out and try and work it to a first-order approximation -- could be interesting.
The method using measurement uncertainty that I suggested in my previous post is simpler, but if Akita's detractors were correct would be more than sufficient to prove their point; they're talking gross errors.
Oh sweet, someone with a clue!
No seriously. Finally a math person enters the chaos.
You don't get a strong probability of success through a monte using Akita's numbers - there is just too many sources of uncertainty when it comes to supply. Both GoldSim and Crystal both came up with < 3.4 overall so it is pretty safe to say that until actual supply (existing and renewable) has been determined, there is no way of knowing, but as you pointed out then you would use a distribution analysis method. As for demand, Crystal pegged it at 94.8 so it is pretty certain; variance is highest influenced by invention which will address growth in the eve population.
Now hopefully people can start to understand why Akita is being called out on his 'Pump and Dump' scheme.
I would like to jump into this discussion more, but unfortunately the time I allotted to this little venture has come to pass. It should be quite obvious to the intelligent investors that any speculation based manipulation that is fragile enough to be swayed 25-35% down solely based on a few days of negative posting should be flagged as 'high risk'. But please continue on with the exercise and use the results as you see fit.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 04:14:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Akita T on 05/01/2010 04:14:45
Originally by: Lord XSiV It should be quite obvious to the intelligent investors that any speculation based manipulation that is fragile enough to be swayed 25-35% down solely based on a few days of negative posting should be flagged as 'high risk'. But please continue on with the exercise and use the results as you see fit.
So, buying stock in the middle of a critical shortage of a resource that jumped overnight from AT MOST 60% of max renewable usage to complete usage of renewable sources (or almost complete, in the most conservative "anti-technetium-bottleneck" estimates), sudden critical shortage that caused a very obvious and predicted mini-bubble on top of an obvious underlying ascending trend is a high risk investment ?
[sarcasm]Gee, who would have thought ?[/sarcasm]
Thank you, Captain Obvious !
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
|
Lord XSiV
Amarr Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 04:38:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 05/01/2010 04:18:57
Originally by: Lord XSiV It should be quite obvious to the intelligent investors that any speculation based manipulation that is fragile enough to be swayed 25-35% down solely based on a few days of negative posting should be flagged as 'high risk'. But please continue on with the exercise and use the results as you see fit.
So, buying stock in the middle of a critical shortage of a resource that jumped overnight from AT MOST 60% of max renewable usage (with potentially huge unused stockpiles) to complete usage of renewable sources (or almost complete, in the most conservative "anti-technetium-bottleneck" estimates), sudden critical shortage that caused a very obvious and predicted mini-bubble on top of an obvious underlying ascending trend is a high risk investment ?
[sarcasm] Gee, who would have thought ? Thank you, Captain Obvious ! [/sarcasm]
P.S. If technetium is not the new sole renewables-only bottleneck, at the most extreme (unfavourable) of estimates, it could be more or less on par with neodymium instead, with everything else at best a "meh". Either way, long-term, barring hefty CCP interference, price can only go up.
Hush. Those with a clue about math have shown their presence in the thread - don't scare them off with your speculation propaganda.
That goes for any others who think Monte-Carlo is just a place to go for vacation.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 04:58:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Lord XSiV Edited by: Lord XSiV on 05/01/2010 03:29:12
Originally by: Krans Hopeson
Hmm. I'd go for a multivariate analytical approach, myself -- the T2 materials market is big enough that most parameters can be assumed to obey Gaussian distributions, and it'd be easier than setting up a Monte-Carlo sim, since if it's only technetium prices that you're interested in you eliminate almost all of the outputs and most of the inputs. Furthermore, it seems to me that the kind of errors Lord Xsiv etc. suggest are present would be much greater than the alchemy contribution, so you could eliminate it, further simplifying the model. Maybe I'll get my pen and paper out and try and work it to a first-order approximation -- could be interesting.
The method using measurement uncertainty that I suggested in my previous post is simpler, but if Akita's detractors were correct would be more than sufficient to prove their point; they're talking gross errors.
Oh sweet, someone with a clue!
No seriously. Finally a math person enters the chaos.
...It should be quite obvious to the intelligent investors that any speculation based manipulation that is fragile enough to be swayed 25-35% down solely based on a few days of negative posting should be flagged as 'high risk'. But please continue on with the exercise and use the results as you see fit.
Haha, finally someone with a clue, huh? Perhaps you shouldn't have been so quick to build this guy up. Guess you didn't see his post above that one:
Originally by: Krans Hopeson
...Until you (Lord Xsiv and fan club) bring something to the table that's more substantial than a butthurt ad hominem argument backed up by error-ridden "mathematics" barely worthy of the name, I think I'll stick with Akita's analysis.
Apparently this math person with a clue, doesn't think very much of your "mathematics."
|
Barbicane
TGUN Industries
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 08:29:00 -
[53]
How about we keep this discussion in the other threads in this forum? Let's not feed the trolls.
Chronotis' War and the Technetium Bottleneck and Dominion market analysis : sky's the limit on technetium (long term)
/thread
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |