Prediction: Breaking $500 within 24 hours

[Beans]

Great Thread. Nothing is Random, randomization is of course impossible as every action has a predetermined consequence. Whether the human mind or tools which the human mind has created have the processing ability to discover the results of all actions before they occur is of course unlikely at our current technological stage.

But having said that the Financial Markets are not as complex as say human life, therefor we are likely to be able to determine fairly accurate predictions of financial markets with the right input data, what of course makes these predictions less stable are variables which we do not have access to, such as other peoples influence. But again this is not random, we just don't have all the data we need.

It is by no means certain that actions have predetermined consequences, in fact it seems it's just not the case. If your right though, we had better stop wasting our time trying to build quantum computers.

[1713248858]

1713248858

[1713248858]

1713248858

[1713248858]

1713248858

[1713248858]

1713248858

[1713248858]

1713248858

[bitsmichel]

the 20 day prediction is looking good. how accurate is this?

which neural network did you implement? how much data did you fed it?

[K128kevin]

the 20 day prediction is looking good. how accurate is this?

which neural network did you implement? how much data did you fed it?

Be careful with the 20 day prediction, because it does have a large average error (about 8-8.2%). That one is not particularly reliable compared to the others, but I think it may be indicative of long-term trends. It has been much less than 20 days since I've had it running so I actually don't really know yet. We'll see I guess. The 24 hour prediction is pretty accurate most of the time though, and the 5 day one isn't quite as good but it still does reasonably well.

I implemented a 3-layer neural network that uses backpropogation. It trains on the entire history of transactions on bitstamp, so about 3 years worth of data.

[paulsonnumismatics]

Also honestly I find it hard to believe that anybody can believe that THIS is impossible. After all that humanity has done, all of our complex and great technological achievements, you think that predicting stock prices with reasonable accuracy is impossible? It's very possible and I have done it. So have many others.

You are claiming to create the first steps of PsicoHistory, my friend. If so, as an Asimov hardcore fan i welcome you. Let me be just skeptic, ok?

[Dotto]

Computer randomness is pretty pseudorandom, maked up with the ticks of the computers clock to amplify the randomness, but quantic random generators are fucking random itselves.

However when a massive number of humans focus on the same event (11S attack, new years eve, etc). The different quantic rnd generators display a very curious behaviour: they enter in synchronicity offering the same 0's and 1´s at the same time.

Strange.

It seems conscience has a major impact bending probabilities. The wave function collapse is another example in the same line, I bet that these facts are somehow related, but we don´t know how, yet.

Even if I have some reserves about the possibility of predicting BTC prices or tendencies with neural nets, I find your work fascinanting and will keep an eye on it.

[TwinWinNerD]

I like the website and the idea behind it, but it is not very accurate lately

I made the test and save a screenshot of the 24h graph every 24 hours. There is SOME correlation, but most swings where not accounted, or the opposite direction was predicted.

[K128kevin]

TwinWinNerD- Really? I've found that (with the exception of when the China ban thing happened) it almost never predicts the wrong direction of movement. It might predict the wrong direction if it, for example, says the price will go up by $2 but it ends up going down by $2 instead, which would be less than 1% error. For pretty much all of the major price changes I've watched it predict against, it's gotten the direction of movement correct but often overestimates the magnitude. There has been one or two instances where it predicted for the price to move up or down and it pretty much stayed the same, but I have not seen it predict a price change of more than like 2% where the actual price ended up moving in the opposite direction (except right after the China ban).

[Bit_Happy]

I predict $500 before $400 but not within 24 hours.
Slow and steady.........for now.

[K128kevin]

I predict $500 before $400 but not within 24 hours.
Slow and steady.........for now.

Predictions right now are showing a jump from mid 400s to just over 500 around the afternoon (EST) on 4/8. It's been consistently predicting this jump up for a while so I think we'll definitely at least see some kind of activity even if it's not right. I think we'll see a rise in price.

[BitOnyx]

You predict this prices or you just guess ?

[morphtrust]

Human behavior is not totally unpredictable. Especially given large numbers of humans.

I got chills, man.
That sounded like Hari Seldon talking there.

lol that is exactly what I was thinking too when I first saw this thread and what he was trying to do XD

[morphtrust]

Quantum mechanics tells us that things are random. Even if you could chart every particle in the universe, you could not predict everything. Although, you can find likely outcomes.

Haha I was waiting for someone to bring up quantum mechanics. I feel like that's the only legitimate argument you can make against what I said. I don't understand enough about quantum mechanics to really discuss this, but from what I've heard from people who actually study it and know a decent amount about it (nobody knows "a lot" about quantum mechanics) all of the things about randomness are still pretty theoretical or just not well understood.

It's a very interesting subject, but regardless it doesn't conflict with my point that bitcoin prices are NOT random.

You should check out "Through the Wormhole", they spend a lot of time on the subject. Basically if you shoot a electron through a solid flat surface it would leave more then one hole. Unless you were observing it. May as well be magic, to our generation at least. We might just be living inside the matrix, that's just a glitch in the program..

um what? pretty sure the original experiment was that they had two slits and they shot them through each causing a wave patter to appear much like spectrum lines from light passing through slits causing "banding" and when "observed" they stopped behaving like a "wave" and went back to behaving like a "particle" and just made two "piles" on either side, much the way sand pouring through two holes would cause two piles of sand on the other side,

I can tell you it is not "observation" that causes this, and the secret to figuring out how this oddity is occurring you just need to know HOW they were "observing" the action, since it was not with a human eye, and no human ever had to look at what was recorded to effect the outcome that can be seen as an after effect with out looking at it. the effect on the outcome was the same either way lol. it amazes me how little people really understand about things and how they hear chinese whispers about things and then just take it all literally, instead of going to the source and looking hard at the data.


the market is not random, that is for sure, there are events that cause things to occur, but knowing what to expect is going to take more than looking at the numbers each time, you need to look at spikes and then look at real events that tailor peoples lives, and see if there is a correlation, then see if the event has a pattern (like the fourth of july that happens here in the USA as a holiday where people blow lots of money on food fireworks and partying, to realize that people may cash out to do so, causing a crash, and then afterwards the market can repair itself as people go back to having just as much burden on their wallets as they did before things happened, sudden windfalls that happen say yearly will have significant effect on things, but not always, so you have to calculate all new changes and how they effect people negatively or positively, and your neural network at this point I am gathering can not do that, but when it can, then we will not see an unstable market anymore, unless you with hold that and use it to make millions lol.

[morphtrust]

TwinWinNerD- Really? I've found that (with the exception of when the China ban thing happened) it almost never predicts the wrong direction of movement. It might predict the wrong direction if it, for example, says the price will go up by $2 but it ends up going down by $2 instead, which would be less than 1% error. For pretty much all of the major price changes I've watched it predict against, it's gotten the direction of movement correct but often overestimates the magnitude. There has been one or two instances where it predicted for the price to move up or down and it pretty much stayed the same, but I have not seen it predict a price change of more than like 2% where the actual price ended up moving in the opposite direction (except right after the China ban).

two things here, one, the market numbers you are looking at, people speculating are also looking at, and I think are expecting things to happen so they are reducing the effect, by acting on this information, I have noticed that the market seems to swing back and forth between strong change and weak ones, and figure this is because people can see about a day or two back on the charts for the exchange they are on, so they are trying to play on that and cause it to not work,

two: you might ask the more important question, since it seems that it can change differently depending on the market you are on at the moment lol, so what market was twinwinerd looking at, and what all market data are you churning with your program?

[morphtrust]

Computer randomness is pretty pseudorandom, maked up with the ticks of the computers clock to amplify the randomness, but quantic random generators are fucking random itselves.

However when a massive number of humans focus on the same event (11S attack, new years eve, etc). The different quantic rnd generators display a very curious behaviour: they enter in synchronicity offering the same 0's and 1´s at the same time.

Strange.

It seems conscience has a major impact bending probabilities. The wave function collapse is another example in the same line, I bet that these facts are somehow related, but we don´t know how, yet.

Even if I have some reserves about the possibility of predicting BTC prices or tendencies with neural nets, I find your work fascinanting and will keep an eye on it.

ok one last post here lol. this sounds like you have been following the PEAR group at Princeton Uni. heh heh,

for those wondering what he might be talking about, you can check out www.psyleron.com I believe and see the REG (*random event generators) they have built into USB devices to record the changes, or the lights that you "think on/off" with your mind alone. I still have the software that was meant to train a person to use this "conscience" to their advantage, and did quite well against others in competitive mode (name of the software was shapechanger, and was put out by mindsong inc. ) 

[Predatorian]

Some of you have seen my website which tries to predict bitcoin prices with software using neural networks:

www.btcpredictions.com

It successfully predicted the drop in price that happened yesterday morning (EST) and it was very accurate throughout the day. It also predicted this rise that we are seeing now, and it's saying that prices will go into the upper $400s, possibly hitting $500! Here is an image of the predictions as of 11am EST:


The software is not always this accurate, but it has been performing exceptionally well recently! I think that we will see prices over $500 within the next 24 hours.

i hope u gonna be right with your ''prediction'' but imho we have to wait some more time for better price.

[johnytelevision]

Does this method make any sense ? From what I can see it look more like guessing then analyzing.

[Xell]

Predicting prices is of course possible, but you need to be clearer about what you mean when you say you are x% accurate.

Randomness is a concept, just like the number 3 or the imaginary number i^2=-1. You can't ever really observe it. People can talk forever about quantum physics but just because something appears random, doesn't mean it really is (in fact its probably not). It's only a lack of knowledge that makes us model these events as truly random (in my opinion, anyway). Even if something is truly random we can still make predictions, like I can bet that there will be less than seven heads if you toss a fair (ie, really random, 50/50) coin ten times. I can be more than 50% confident that will happen.

But that semantic aside, the real question is: how is average error measured? What do you even mean by 'error'? What model are you using for the underlying?

You can only be x% confident of an event happening if you know the underlying distribution (which you don't), or you are comparing to a model (which you haven't disclosed, and which is also obviously not totally correct).

Your graphs make no real sense, because there the probability of any of your graphs being correct is almost zero. What you (might) mean, is that based on your model you are 95% confident that the bitcoin price will stay within 1.273% of the line you predict. You can't simply have one error value and claim to be 100% confident that it will lie within that error. That's totally absurd.

Generally these things are modelled using something like Brownian motion (which is obviously not accurate, but is nice because it comes under many different process, Gaussian, Markov, Levy, Martingale etc., so there are many results we can use). But you simply can't have only one error value without also specifying a confidence level. You can model the BTC/USD price and claim based on your calculations you are 90% confident that the price will be within 450 and 480 in one hours time. But you can't claim 'average error' as a measure of current prediction accuracy. In fact, without defining what you even mean by 'error' then it may as well read 'average error: 3 aubergines and a courgette'. That would be equally useful.

In fact, you probably consider the current bitcoin price as continuous (rather than a discrete number of US$ & cents), in which case the probability you are correct is zero almost surely.

[K128kevin]

morphtrust - the possibility of people trading based on this information, and therefore causing higher errors is, of course, inevitable. However, at this point in the site's life I tend to doubt that enough people are actually making decisions based on this data to significantly affect the market though. This is very hard to measure though - especially given that I'm far from an expert in economics or markets and I don't really know how many people are needed to affect the market to what degree.

Xell - I mean, I thought the average error was pretty self explanatory. If it has an average error of 1.3%, that means that on average, it is off by 1.3%. That's about it. If you take all of its predictions and compare them against the actual prices, you'll find that the average of all the errors is 1.3%. A few people have asked about this though, so I'll give a little bit more detail.

The neural network, once it is done training, does some "test runs" where it attempts to make predictions at a few tens of thousands of points on the historic data. It compares its predictions to the actual prices that occurred and calculates the errors. The average errors that show up on the charts on the home page are the averages of all of these errors from the test runs.

With neural networks, there is no data that you would get which corresponds with something like a confidence level. It tries to approximate a function, but there is no probability involved in this.

[TwinWinNerD]

Xell - I mean, I thought the average error was pretty self explanatory. If it has an average error of 1.3%, that means that on average, it is off by 1.3%. That's about it. If you take all of its predictions and compare them against the actual prices, you'll find that the average of all the errors is 1.3%. A few people have asked about this though, so I'll give a little bit more detail.

1.3% of what? Absolute value? Pricemovement between 2 datapoints? Over the whole period?

[Xell]

morphtrust - the possibility of people trading based on this information, and therefore causing higher errors is, of course, inevitable. However, at this point in the site's life I tend to doubt that enough people are actually making decisions based on this data to significantly affect the market though. This is very hard to measure though - especially given that I'm far from an expert in economics or markets and I don't really know how many people are needed to affect the market to what degree.

Xell - I mean, I thought the average error was pretty self explanatory. If it has an average error of 1.3%, that means that on average, it is off by 1.3%. That's about it. If you take all of its predictions and compare them against the actual prices, you'll find that the average of all the errors is 1.3%. A few people have asked about this though, so I'll give a little bit more detail.

The neural network, once it is done training, does some "test runs" where it attempts to make predictions at a few tens of thousands of points on the historic data. It compares its predictions to the actual prices that occurred and calculates the errors. The average errors that show up on the charts on the home page are the averages of all of these errors from the test runs.

With neural networks, there is no data that you would get which corresponds with something like a confidence level. It tries to approximate a function, but there is no probability involved in this.

Just reread your post. That method of expressing error is hopeless when your predictions update hourly. It just doesn't make sense to take an average of errors like that. You need to explain better exactly how you calculate the error when (in the 24 hour case) you are really making 24 predictions per hour. You look at the error from all 24 predictions, square them (or take absolute value) and add them up? So you're adding 24 positive values up?

Your errors are also meaningless in terms of current prediction, because the errors you list are purely historic and are independent of the current prediction.