/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7871797
bumop

no one knows

I bought in at .50
Should I be concerned?

>>7871971
do you think you should?

>assblaster predicting anything

tell me one time he predicted something
and none of the shit like "it will dip in january"
thats obvious

>>7872001
fuck off he was right on the point till now

>>7872001
He predicted it would bump before the conference and he did. Also before you start saying “that was obvious” you understand statistically being 60% accurate 3 times is equivalent to being 90% accurate?

>>7872041
>REVOLUTIONARY NEW PARADIGM
assblaster 2018

He has no clue about the market. The big guys he knows only got verified recently and are playing with a mil or less.

>>7872067
The "chainlink crypto fund?" 2.5 mil

>>7871797
>They didn't study the calendar

>>7872210
can somebody explain this meme

>>7871797
No, the final drop will be to 0 and they stay there.

>>7872041
>you understand statistically being 60% accurate 3 times is equivalent to being 90% accurate?

>>7872041
>you understand statistically being 60% accurate 3 times is equivalent to being 90% accurate?
i'm employed as a (bio)statistician and i would love to read your explanation for this

>>7872179
>2.5 mil
that's nothing.

>>7872283
ok Schiff

>>7872356
LMAO BOOMER NIGGERS

>>7872332
It's like 3 or 4 silicon valley guys putting up their own money. It's not huge but it's not nothing. It means smart people know about this

>>7872031
well instead of sucking his dick you could give me one example
>>7872041
>people trying to sell the news
you are right he has deep insight

>>7872332
If you bought 2.5m worth of link right now you would pump the price at least 500%

>>7872480
i play one powerball per week and if i ever win i'm going to buyout the entire linky order book just for lmaoery

>>7872315

Let’s say a test generates a false positive 30% of the time, if three separate tests are taken with the same false positive rate, the odds of a single false positive across all 3 is (0.3*0.3*0.3 = 0.09) so let’s assume AB had a 33% chance of simply guessing correctly, doing so three times would be a 9% chance.

>>7872356

Our guy.

>>7872549
that's not how test sensitivity and specificity works, sweetie. try repeating your intro-to-stats class

>>7872568
lol im pretty sure he just slaps a calculator and hopes for the best

>>7872356
Peter Schiff has gloated and pointed out every Bitcoin drop for the past four years.

>>7872315
Ayo m8 how did you get into this field? Masters in public health?

>>7872711
masters in biomedical engineering with a math minor from my undergrad. i run stats for a research group and i go into lab and see what they're doing to more accurately apply the stats to the data

>>7872568

Lmao being this dumb you can’t into basic probability.

If the three events are independent then yes it’s exactly how it works dumbass

>>7872804
>a screening that is correct 60% of the time, run 3 times, is the statistical equivalent of a test that is run once and correct 90% of the time
show me a proof please i would love to see it

>>7871797

Refresh me on what he said again, pls?

Soon

>>7872210
Cant wait for my books about financial astrology to come.

Last full moon was brutal.

>>7872841

Not the same screening you dumb fuck, three completely independent and different tests with a (hypothetical) perfect accuracy of 90%, with 0 interference between each other, will be precisely as accurate as a single test that is 99.9% accurate. Are you really too much of a brainlet to understand this? The odds of a false result is 0.1^3

>>7873070
>three completely independent and different tests with a (hypothetical) perfect accuracy of 90%, with 0 interference between each other, will be precisely as accurate as a single test that is 99.9% accurate
if only there were very simple proofs for these kinds of things... and you can't provide one. makes me think (not really)

>>7871797
bump

bumpering

What did Assblaster say exactly

>>7873685
>braaapppfff

>>7873685
> I don't have any connections with exchanges but rumours are: continue dumping the prices of crypto til it hits the 'mean', then a final bull pump as they buy up, then a dip, then they unleash the horde of buyers they've been keeping at bay. This is the reason people have stopped googling crypto and stopped talking about it, the buyers are there but they're just not being let through the gates. Unfortunately it's still in the favour of institutional money to bleed the price out, hence they aren't exposing these exchanges, if they did it would wreak havoc all across crypto.

>In other words right now: exchanges are manipulating the price, financial institutions are looking the other way because they want to manipulate it next, and it's in their best interest to not sully the name of crypto because once they get in their gonna want 'their turn' at pumping. We are all pawns in an elaborate chess game between exchanges and Wall Street.

>>7873845
> Literally anyone in finance knows through simple game theory that its in wall streets best interest to keep crypto alive and well, they're gonna follow the mean chart to the letter to justify the crash and then to start getting the FOMO train rolling. The amount of money they can make in crypto, CLEANLY, is enormous. In about six months expect sudden predictions everywhere of bitcoin hitting 100k, thats when they've bought in, then it'll hit 100k, they'll take their enormous profits and get the credit of having predicted everything.

>>7873685
> I'm confident in some serious movements across all crypto in spring, March/April as I said before, LINK should gain more than the market as a whole by a significant margin.

>>7873685
> Wall Street doesn't just refer to literal WS (GS and JPM), literally THOUSANDS of banks across all financial districts and countries want in on this easy money. The market is unregulated and the idea of crypto being value has been demonstrated in the past to your common man. It is objectively in the best interest of these banks to pump this again, while the market is unregulated, then they'll point to the meme chart and say "see? it regressed to the mean, now it's ready for another pump" and this time 10x more normies will FOMO in thinking 'this time I won't miss out'. Why kill the golden goose?

>>7872067
>t. butthurt brainlet with lack of attention in his life

>>7873845
>then a final bull pump as they buy up, then a dip, then they unleash the horde of buyers
so is this the final dip before the horde?

>>7875198
could be, but we don't know if it's gonna go to 9k or 4k like the meme chart would sugest probably

>>7872356
HE WANTS TO GET IN!!!!!!!!
DON'T LET HIM GET IN!!!!!!!

>>7872041
>you understand statistically being 60% accurate 3 times is equivalent to being 90% accurate?
Hey AB, that's not how it works

>>7875198
that's what I hope

This guy lacks basic education and is reliably incorrect.

>>7872356
oh vey vey goyim

>>7875295
see >>7875043

>>7875295
being reliably incorrect provides just as useful of a signal as being reliably correct