Prediction: Breaking $500 within 24 hours

[twiifm]

Just curious how do you trade these predictions?  You just buy and sell if your target is hit?

If your target doesn't hit what do you do?  Double down? Swallow loss?

[1714140073]

1714140073

[1714140073]

1714140073

[1714140073]

1714140073

[K128kevin]

Even if you improve the preditions and add more functions into your website, there are always people arguing about it, instead of looking for solutions to improved it themself.
Most people who have seen your work are positive.

Thank you, that's nice to hear

Just curious how do you trade these predictions?  You just buy and sell if your target is hit?

If your target doesn't hit what do you do?  Double down? Swallow loss?

Are you talking about the trade simulator idea that I've been testing? The method I'm testing at the moment, which I think is the most promising, is that it looks at the 24 hour chart and sets a buy and sell price based on the predictions. If it doesn't predict for the price to significantly change, it just sets the buy price to 1.5% below the current price, and the sell price to 1.5% above. If the price is supposed to change soon, then it sets the buy or sell price to the price that the chart says it should reach (buy if it's low, sell if it's high obviously).

If it doesn't reach the target then it will just wait. I have it so that it only buys and sells 1 btc at a time, never more or less. I feel like this is the simplest way to show potential profitability. Then people can see how much money per bitcoin it makes by trading based on predictions.

Also remember that if the target says, for example, that the price will be $480 at 6:00 pm, that doesn't actually mean it will be the price at that time. It means that will be the average price over the course of the hour leading up to that time, meaning that it is likely that the price will go a bit higher and a bit lower. If I set the sell to $480, that might not be the highest price it gets to but it will most likely reach that price. Even if the average price over the course of that hour ends up being $475 or $470, there is still a solid chance it will hit $480 at some point.

Unfortunately, the price has been super stable the past day or so, so the simulator isn't buying or selling. Hopefully we'll get a bit of volatility soon and we can see how it actually does.

[twiifm]

I hope you make a lot of money.   Im not here to criticize your system.   Im just skeptical as an options trader. Im a firm believer in random walk in short term (minutes) ,  technicals in semi  short (hours,  days)  term and fundamentals long term (days,  months) .   Most of my trades are delta neutral.  I sell premium 45 days out on IV spikes.   I do have spec long positions that are 6 mos to year out

2 problems I foresee trading BTC

1.  The slippage on BTC  is huge.   Probably  cause theres no liquidity.  I looked on bitstamp and coinbase and the bid/ask can be $5 wide.  Lack of liquidity also makes difficult for intraday trading if you cant get in and out of position

2.  Theres no easy way to short BTC so you can only trade bullish direction.   In options you can trade up,  down,  or sideways

[K128kevin]

I hope you make a lot of money.   Im not here to criticize your system.   Im just skeptical as an options trader. Im a firm believer in random walk in short term (minutes) ,  technicals in semi  short (hours,  days)  term and fundamentals long term (days,  months) .   Most of my trades are delta neutral.  I sell premium 45 days out on IV spikes.   I do have spec long positions that are 6 mos to year out

2 problems I foresee trading BTC

1.  The slippage on BTC  is huge.   Probably  cause theres no liquidity.  I looked on bitstamp and coinbase and the bid/ask can be $5 wide.  Lack of liquidity also makes difficult for intraday trading if you cant get in and out of position

2.  Theres no easy way to short BTC so you can only trade bullish direction.   In options you can trade up,  down,  or sideways

Yeah, I mean as I've said, I don't know a lot about trading. I'm doing this from a computer science perspective, so I don't know how profitable this will be. As I've said before though, I believe predictions should be taken with a grain of salt, and you should consider recent news as well when making decisions, and use your own judgement. I would never blindly trade according to these predictions only (which is what the simulator will be doing). However I believe it can be a good tool to consult when making decisions to buy/sell. It may be able to help you optimize when you decide to execute trades, allowing you to earn some extra money.

[toxic1978]

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.

Find me a theory that explains how a random activity works. For something to be random it has to happen for no reason, with nothing preceeding it. We cannot as humans beings necessarily predict the consequences of actions, but how can something happen without cause or reason?

Did I randomly come across this post and decide to start writing a response.... well if I was telling someone else about it I would probably say I came across the post randomly - however I didn't, all the events from my birth onwards led me to that point (and of course my mother and fathers actions would of also had an affect, and theirs and so on). So it wasn't random, several trillion variables which all had a set value due to other trillions of variables and so on created the unique event of me replying to this post.

But hey, its just theory of mine - I may be wrong .

:p

[twiifm]

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.

Find me a theory that explains how a random activity works. For something to be random it has to happen for no reason, with nothing preceeding it. We cannot as humans beings necessarily predict the consequences of actions, but how can something happen without cause or reason?

Did I randomly come across this post and decide to start writing a response.... well if I was telling someone else about it I would probably say I came across the post randomly - however I didn't, all the events from my birth onwards led me to that point (and of course my mother and fathers actions would of also had an affect, and theirs and so on). So it wasn't random, several trillion variables which all had a set value due to other trillions of variables and so on created the unique event of me replying to this post.

But hey, its just theory of mine - I may be wrong .

:p

Random as in unpredictable.   

[Bit_Happy]

$500 within 24 hours from now is still possible.
BTC tends to bounce fast once the rally/recovery begins. 

[K128kevin]

$500 within 24 hours from now is still possible.
BTC tends to bounce fast once the rally/recovery begins. 

lol well I hope it goes up, but also I posted this a week ago haha

[LordMo]

Is the algorithm based on some sort of last couple of days moving average? It constantly says price will go up.

[alero]

$500 getting less and less probable...

Current price: $377.02 (14.35%)

[K128kevin]

Is the algorithm based on some sort of last couple of days moving average? It constantly says price will go up.

It doesn't always say that the price will go up, it has successfully predicted dips in price before.

But yes, it looks at the last 60 hours for the 24 hour prediction. However, it learns how to predict by looking at the entire price history on bitstamp, going about 3 years back. The model it uses is called an artificial neural network. You can read about them on Wikipedia or a bunch of other sites if you are interested.

[vinipoars]

Most probably:
350 within 1 week.
300 within 2 weeks.
250 within 3 weeks
200 within 1 month.

 

[K128kevin]

Most probably:
350 within 1 week.
300 within 2 weeks.
250 within 3 weeks
200 within 1 month.

 

Hmmm I think that the price will move faster than that. If it keeps crashing, I think it will be below $200 in one month. Otherwise, I think it will have spiked back up to at least like $500. I would be surprised to see a slow and steady fall like that.

[porcupine87]

Even if you improve the preditions and add more functions into your website, there are always people arguing about it, instead of looking for solutions to improved it themself.
Most people who have seen your work are positive.

I don't know if this method adds any value. You read about an error of 1.3% on a daily basis. This is a flaw because this only counts for ex ante predictions. Not for acutal predictions into the future. For example he made the prediction of 480$. The real price was around 440$. This is an error of 8.3%.

I watched it for a while and checked:
30.march 3pm it predicted 489$. Real price (24h later) was: 455$ (7%error)
31.3. 12am he predicted 465$. Real price was: 486$ (4.3%)
1.4. 1am he predicted 456$. Real price was: 485$ (6.3%)
1.4. 8pm he predicted 466$. Real price was: 434$ (6.9%)
2.4. 11am he predicted 449$. Real price was: 422$ (6%)

So there is an average error of about 6%.

So is that good or bad? We can just estimate that quickly. Take the prediction: "Price today is the price in 24h". This is just the volatility. I took the hourly prices of bitstamp and compared it to the value 24h later. The mean error was 3.8%.

-> So if you just guess that the current price is the price in 24h you drive better than with this prediction of the neural network (although I just made a sample of 6 predictions of it).

[K128kevin]

I don't know if this method adds any value. You read about an error of 1.3% on a daily basis. This is a flaw because this only counts for ex ante predictions. Not for acutal predictions into the future. For example he made the prediction of 480$. The real price was around 440$. This is an error of 8.3%.

I watched it for a while and checked:
30.march 3pm it predicted 489$. Real price (24h later) was: 455$ (7%error)
31.3. 12am he predicted 465$. Real price was: 486$ (4.3%)
1.4. 1am he predicted 456$. Real price was: 485$ (6.3%)
1.4. 8pm he predicted 466$. Real price was: 434$ (6.9%)
2.4. 11am he predicted 449$. Real price was: 422$ (6%)

So there is an average error of about 6%.

So is that good or bad? We can just estimate that quickly. Take the prediction: "Price today is the price in 24h". This is just the volatility. I took the hourly prices of bitstamp and compared it to the value 24h later. The mean error was 3.8%.

-> So if you just guess that the current price is the price in 24h you drive better than with this prediction of the neural network (although I just made a sample of 6 predictions of it).

There are several things wrong with this data you are providing.

First of all, I'm not sure how you chose the specific times you tested, but they are clearly it's worst predictions. As you said, you only took a sample of 6 predictions. Every hour I take a sample of something like 60,000 predictions and calculate the average error. It comes to about 1.3%, so actually that is the correct figure (not 6%). Furthermore, this means that if the average deviation during 24 hours is 3.8%, then these predictions perform WAY better than just guessing the same price.

Second, it sounds like you are comparing predictions to the price at that moment. The prices predicted are not the price at that specific hour - they are the average price over the course of that hour. I do state this a few times on the website, including in the main description of the charts on the home page.

Third of all, the average errors actually are an under-representation of its accuracy because it updates every hour. When it predicts an hourly price incorrectly, it readjusts predictions so that they will be more accurate.

And lastly, if I could tell you the future error of my predictions, they wouldn't really be predictions would they? They would be science fiction lol...

[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.

Find me a theory that explains how a random activity works. For something to be random it has to happen for no reason, with nothing preceeding it. We cannot as humans beings necessarily predict the consequences of actions, but how can something happen without cause or reason?

Did I randomly come across this post and decide to start writing a response.... well if I was telling someone else about it I would probably say I came across the post randomly - however I didn't, all the events from my birth onwards led me to that point (and of course my mother and fathers actions would of also had an affect, and theirs and so on). So it wasn't random, several trillion variables which all had a set value due to other trillions of variables and so on created the unique event of me replying to this post.

But hey, its just theory of mine - I may be wrong .

:p

A universe without god needs randomness. Finding what causes randomness could be impossible, but that doesn't make it any less true. Things like radioactive decay appear to happen for no reason. Things appear random on a quantum level, while on a larger scale they don't appear random at all. It may be just a truth we have to accept unless something else comes along.

[notbatman]

Random numbers; what kind of ill concept is this?

[HCLivess]

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.

Find me a theory that explains how a random activity works. For something to be random it has to happen for no reason, with nothing preceeding it. We cannot as humans beings necessarily predict the consequences of actions, but how can something happen without cause or reason?

Did I randomly come across this post and decide to start writing a response.... well if I was telling someone else about it I would probably say I came across the post randomly - however I didn't, all the events from my birth onwards led me to that point (and of course my mother and fathers actions would of also had an affect, and theirs and so on). So it wasn't random, several trillion variables which all had a set value due to other trillions of variables and so on created the unique event of me replying to this post.

But hey, its just theory of mine - I may be wrong .

:p

A universe without god needs randomness. Finding what causes randomness could be impossible, but that doesn't make it any less true. Things like radioactive decay appear to happen for no reason. Things appear random on a quantum level, while on a larger scale they don't appear random at all. It may be just a truth we have to accept unless something else comes along.

Thank you for introducing basics to the poor-minded.

[K128kevin]

A universe without god needs randomness. Finding what causes randomness could be impossible, but that doesn't make it any less true. Things like radioactive decay appear to happen for no reason. Things appear random on a quantum level, while on a larger scale they don't appear random at all. It may be just a truth we have to accept unless something else comes along.

If anything caused randomness then it wouldn't be random. I think you are mistaking randomness with phenomena that we can't explain. Just because we don't know what causes something or because something appears random to us doesn't mean that it actually is random. In fact, human history seems to continually prove that things we attribute to magic or just randomness actually have scientific causes and are far from random.

[porcupine87]

I don't know if this method adds any value. You read about an error of 1.3% on a daily basis. This is a flaw because this only counts for ex ante predictions. Not for acutal predictions into the future. For example he made the prediction of 480$. The real price was around 440$. This is an error of 8.3%.

I watched it for a while and checked:
30.march 3pm it predicted 489$. Real price (24h later) was: 455$ (7%error)
31.3. 12am he predicted 465$. Real price was: 486$ (4.3%)
1.4. 1am he predicted 456$. Real price was: 485$ (6.3%)
1.4. 8pm he predicted 466$. Real price was: 434$ (6.9%)
2.4. 11am he predicted 449$. Real price was: 422$ (6%)

So there is an average error of about 6%.

So is that good or bad? We can just estimate that quickly. Take the prediction: "Price today is the price in 24h". This is just the volatility. I took the hourly prices of bitstamp and compared it to the value 24h later. The mean error was 3.8%.

-> So if you just guess that the current price is the price in 24h you drive better than with this prediction of the neural network (although I just made a sample of 6 predictions of it).

There are several things wrong with this data you are providing.

First of all, I'm not sure how you chose the specific times you tested, but they are clearly it's worst predictions. As you said, you only took a sample of 6 predictions. Every hour I take a sample of something like 60,000 predictions and calculate the average error. It comes to about 1.3%, so actually that is the correct figure (not 6%). Furthermore, this means that if the average deviation during 24 hours is 3.8%, then these predictions perform WAY better than just guessing the same price.

So you saying you run your neural network on learning data and then test against test data and so you come to the error of 1.3%? Then my used sample of 6 would be a pretty amazing coincidance. Because I just picked 6 random times when I just thought about it. But because not of the real future predictions is even close to 1.3%, my guess is you just use one set of data and the 1.3% is for the learning data itself.

So am I right?

Second, it sounds like you are comparing predictions to the price at that moment. The prices predicted are not the price at that specific hour - they are the average price over the course of that hour. I do state this a few times on the website, including in the main description of the charts on the home page.

Ok, I took the opening price at Bitstamp. Do you use Bitstamp prices? Anyhow, if I use the average price it will still not even get close to that 1.3%.

So, we can make the test. You use bitstamp prices and when you make a prediction at 4pm for 4pm the other day, what average price do you predict? From 3-4pm or from 4-5pm? Than we can check together? (do you save your predictions?)