Prediction: Breaking $500 within 24 hours

[spooderman]

Don't waste your time with that idiot... Look at him harrassing our poor chartbuddy.. 

Explanation

well, we can see that even if you didn't post it....

 

I'll not dirty my hands with anyone who hassles chartbuddy.

I'm not your chartbuddy, chartguy!

[mikerbiker6]

It is impossible.
It is human nature to see patterns even when there aren't any.

For every dip your software predicts, there is a dip it didnt predict.
When people look at a chart and the predicted chart they see the things that are correctly predicted, but they overlook the things that weren't predicted, that is just how humans are. But when they notice a flaw, they say:"well yeah, it came pretty close, so let's not count that one".
That is why it is not going to work.

[mikerbiker6]

stock price is pretty similar to random walk.
Give up the hunt for unicorns.

[Cassius]

It is impossible.
It is human nature to see patterns even when there aren't any.

For every dip your software predicts, there is a dip it didnt predict.
When people look at a chart and the predicted chart they see the things that are correctly predicted, but they overlook the things that weren't predicted, that is just how humans are. But when they notice a flaw, they say:"well yeah, it came pretty close, so let's not count that one".
That is why it is not going to work.

True.
Also it is human nature to see patterns where there are patterns.
I guess the problem is telling between the two.
The other problem is that sometimes there just aren't enough faces and palms to facepalm.

[Malin Keshar]

maybe 500+ at 10th, but still more than 24h for that

[K128kevin2]

Just because my website isn't accurate all the time doesn't mean that predicting prices is impossible. This isn't even really an argument, it's objectively true that it is possible. Whether it can be done practically is another question, and it is still pretty clear that the answer is yes. In fact, it has been done on stock prices already on many occasions.

mikerbiker6 - You say that it is human nature to see patterns where there aren't any. First of all, can you prove that this is true? What are you basing this statement off of? Second of all, how is this relevant to being able to use software (which is not human) to predict bitcoin prices? Also what you are saying about people overlooking the false predictions not the case at all. In fact, people have MUCH more often done the opposite - they see one or two bad predictions, ignore the good ones, and make the generalization that the system performs poorly.

People here are claiming it is impossible to predict bitcoin prices because they themselves don't know how to do it and can't think of how/why any method would work (which is reasonable because most people have not learned about the types of algorithms and models that would be useful for doing something like this). However, it is not reasonable to make assumptions that it can't be done just because you dont' know how. It 100% is possible to accurately predict bitcoin prices, and you guys will see that this is the case eventually. I am working on improving my predictions, and I'm sure there are other people out there working on their own methods of prediction as well.

Lastly, as I've explained in other threads, to believe that bitcoin prices are unpredictable is to believe that they are random. Anything that is not random is predictable and has a cause. Anything that is random does not have a cause by definition. Something that happens for no reason is the definition of magic, so to say that bitcoin prices are unpredictable is literally the same as saying that price fluctuations are caused by magic. It's just nonsense.

[bitcoinsrus]

Just because my website isn't accurate all the time doesn't mean that predicting prices is impossible. This isn't even really an argument, it's objectively true that it is possible. Whether it can be done practically is another question, and it is still pretty clear that the answer is yes. In fact, it has been done on stock prices already on many occasions.

mikerbiker6 - You say that it is human nature to see patterns where there aren't any. First of all, can you prove that this is true? What are you basing this statement off of? Second of all, how is this relevant to being able to use software (which is not human) to predict bitcoin prices? Also what you are saying about people overlooking the false predictions not the case at all. In fact, people have MUCH more often done the opposite - they see one or two bad predictions, ignore the good ones, and make the generalization that the system performs poorly.

People here are claiming it is impossible to predict bitcoin prices because they themselves don't know how to do it and can't think of how/why any method would work (which is reasonable because most people have not learned about the types of algorithms and models that would be useful for doing something like this). However, it is not reasonable to make assumptions that it can't be done just because you dont' know how. It 100% is possible to accurately predict bitcoin prices, and you guys will see that this is the case eventually. I am working on improving my predictions, and I'm sure there are other people out there working on their own methods of prediction as well.

Lastly, as I've explained in other threads, to believe that bitcoin prices are unpredictable is to believe that they are random. Anything that is not random is predictable and has a cause. Anything that is random does not have a cause by definition. Something that happens for no reason is the definition of magic, so to say that bitcoin prices are unpredictable is literally the same as saying that price fluctuations are caused by magic. It's just nonsense.

I have followed btcpredictions for a bit and it seems on the right path.  Not saying its always correct (the weeks before leading up to last week, it originally predicted a sub 400 for today (5/8/14) (and was wondering if there would be a dip), but a few days ago the chart updated and is accurate to what it is now).

I agree if many many things are taken into account (volume, bear or bull market situation, news etc are taken into consideration: it might be possible to make an estimated guess about the price) but of course nothing (in life) is a given.  But in the long run, I like btcpredictions (and I tab it daily) and I like that it updates regularly.  Anyways, great job in creating the site and I plan to use it time and time again

[K128kevin2]

I have followed btcpredictions for a bit and it seems on the right path.  Not saying its always correct (the weeks before leading up to last week, it originally predicted a sub 400 for today (5/8/14) (and was wondering if there would be a dip), but a few days ago the chart updated and is accurate to what it is now).

I agree if many many things are taken into account (volume, bear or bull market situation, news etc are taken into consideration: it might be possible to make an estimated guess about the price) but of course nothing (in life) is a given.  But in the long run, I like btcpredictions (and I tab it daily) and I like that it updates regularly.  Anyways, great job in creating the site and I plan to use it time and time again

Hey, thanks a lot! It makes me very happy to hear that people are interested in it and following it regularly

[twiifm]

Just because my website isn't accurate all the time doesn't mean that predicting prices is impossible. This isn't even really an argument, it's objectively true that it is possible. Whether it can be done practically is another question, and it is still pretty clear that the answer is yes. In fact, it has been done on stock prices already on many occasions.

mikerbiker6 - You say that it is human nature to see patterns where there aren't any. First of all, can you prove that this is true? What are you basing this statement off of? Second of all, how is this relevant to being able to use software (which is not human) to predict bitcoin prices? Also what you are saying about people overlooking the false predictions not the case at all. In fact, people have MUCH more often done the opposite - they see one or two bad predictions, ignore the good ones, and make the generalization that the system performs poorly.

People here are claiming it is impossible to predict bitcoin prices because they themselves don't know how to do it and can't think of how/why any method would work (which is reasonable because most people have not learned about the types of algorithms and models that would be useful for doing something like this). However, it is not reasonable to make assumptions that it can't be done just because you dont' know how. It 100% is possible to accurately predict bitcoin prices, and you guys will see that this is the case eventually. I am working on improving my predictions, and I'm sure there are other people out there working on their own methods of prediction as well.

Lastly, as I've explained in other threads, to believe that bitcoin prices are unpredictable is to believe that they are random. Anything that is not random is predictable and has a cause. Anything that is random does not have a cause by definition. Something that happens for no reason is the definition of magic, so to say that bitcoin prices are unpredictable is literally the same as saying that price fluctuations are caused by magic. It's just nonsense.

You can use logic to determine markets are random walk/ unpredictable.  Markets can be broken down to individual players.  Each player only has 3 possible moves sell-buy-hold.  All players play to make profit. The players only choice is follow trend, be contrarian or neutral.  Any given day more players join or leave.  The only time anything is predictable is when you get a volatility spike or dip and volatility always revert to mean.  This usually happens on significant news.  Most experienced traders know this from trading everyday.

Or you can also just use Occam's Razor.  If markets were predictable then everyone would be doing it.  If everyone did it there would not be a market.

Since I first commented in your thread a month ago I tried to Google "neural networks" and market prediction.  Seems like this was tried for a while in late 80's wary 90s but no big firms believe in this method.  The big trading firms have all the money to hire the best scientists & mathematicians in the world.  If they don't  believe in it then it probably doesn't work.  Most of the "quants" in Wall Street are hired to calculate statistical probabilities.  They make trading decisions based on long term statistical strategies like "statistical arbitrage" or they try to determine if the derivatives are correctly priced or not using concepts from Game theory, Kelly criterion gambling, etc..  This is not the same as price prediction!  I only see some fly-by-night amateur website or youtube channel claiming to be able to predict price using "neural networks".  And from what I've seen it's just some lame technical indicator.  

What I learned about "neural networks"  is that its mainly used to teach computers to recognize patterns.  Things that humans have no problem doing like speech recognition.  Seems to me like you are misapplying "neural networks" here.  First you claim that computers are better at recognizing patterns than humans.  This first point is already debatable.  Second you argue that there are patterns in market prices.  This is the Technical Analysis argument.  There might be some patterns occurring some of the time but its not consistent enough to create a complete trading system.  And since most trading firms are moving away from technical analysis and towards quantitative analysts, it should tell you that quantitative trading is far more profitable than technical trading.  Fundamental analysis is still dominant for the "investing" world though.

[theonewhowaskazu]

You can say what you want about the predictions that my site is making right now, but predicting prices is absolutely possible. I find it completely ridiculous that anybody would think otherwise. We've created technology that can make cars drive themselves, we have phones with high definition touch screens that we carry in our pockets, and we've LITERALLY gone to the moon, yet you think predicting the price of bitcoin is impossible?

Yes because your prediction affects the outcome. Thus when testing a strategy you don't have access to the actual market conditions of when you're executing the strategy. That's why banks like derivatives so much: You can bet on a financial instrument without affecting that instrument.

[K128kevin2]

You can use logic to determine markets are random walk/ unpredictable.  Markets can be broken down to individual players.  Each player only has 3 possible moves sell-buy-hold.  All players play to make profit. The players only choice is follow trend, be contrarian or neutral.  Any given day more players join or leave.  The only time anything is predictable is when you get a volatility spike or dip and volatility always revert to mean.  This usually happens on significant news.  Most experienced traders know this from trading everyday.

Or you can also just use Occam's Razor.  If markets were predictable then everyone would be doing it.  If everyone did it there would not be a market.

Since I first commented in your thread a month ago I tried to Google "neural networks" and market prediction.  Seems like this was tried for a while in late 80's wary 90s but no big firms believe in this method.  The big trading firms have all the money to hire the best scientists & mathematicians in the world.  If they don't  believe in it then it probably doesn't work.  Most of the "quants" in Wall Street are hired to calculate statistical probabilities.  They make trading decisions based on long term statistical strategies like "statistical arbitrage" or they try to determine if the derivatives are correctly priced or not using concepts from Game theory, Kelly criterion gambling, etc..  This is not the same as price prediction!  I only see some fly-by-night amateur website or youtube channel claiming to be able to predict price using "neural networks".  And from what I've seen it's just some lame technical indicator.  

What I learned about "neural networks"  is that its mainly used to teach computers to recognize patterns.  Things that humans have no problem doing like speech recognition.  Seems to me like you are misapplying "neural networks" here.  First you claim that computers are better at recognizing patterns than humans.  This first point is already debatable.  Second you argue that there are patterns in market prices.  This is the Technical Analysis argument.  There might be some patterns occurring some of the time but its not consistent enough to create a complete trading system.  And since most trading firms are moving away from technical analysis and towards quantitative analysts, it should tell you that quantitative trading is far more profitable than technical trading.  Fundamental analysis is still dominant for the "investing" world though.

If you Googled neural networks then you should have found the numerous studies where they were used for stock price prediction successfully. Neural networks were not used much at all in the 80s. They were first created in 1943 and then barely used again until the 1990s/2000s. But this is irrelevant.

You are not the first person to make the statement "If price prediction were possible, everyone would be doing it". I'm sorry to be a dick here but this is just an extremely stupid statement. There are tons of things that are possible that not everybody is doing. One project that I was thinking of doing at one point was writing a mobile app that could recognize and identify bird calls (which there is a high demand for actually, and does not yet exist). I didn't follow through because I didn't have the data that would be required, but it is absolutely 100% doable. If we can recognize human speech and we can recognize music then we can definitely recognize bird calls. The statement that everybody would be doing this makes the false assumption that everybody knows how to do this and has the resources to do so. That is obviously false.

Furthermore, as someone who has a much better understanding of neural networks and their uses than you do, I can assure you that they do things that humans can't even come close to doing. Yes, they are used for speech recognition. They are used for computer vision as well. In fact, the first time I created a neural network was to recognize hand-written digits. It performed better than a human. Neural networks can solve the traveling sales person problem, which humans are obviously very bad at. They can be used for image compression. They can be used for countless other applications. As I've mentioned, commodity price prediction is also one of the standard uses of neural networks. This isn't something I'm inventing. However, I'm trying to be innovative in the manner in which I am applying neural networks. This is far from a "misapplication".

You argue that there are no consistent patterns in price fluctuations. The mere existence of my project 100% proves this wrong. My software finds patterns in the data, and these are patterns that no human could ever find. You are basing your arguments and assumptions here on what you see and believe as a human looking at an insurmountable amount of data. If my software was not finding consistent patterns, it would not be able to attain the average error figures that it does.

It seems like you are just dismissive of neural networks because you don't understand them. It is one thing to be a bit skeptical, but don't judge something unless you understand it. I can tell that your "research" of neural networks was extremely limited, so I recommend actually learning a bit about them if you are going to try to make an argument against their effectiveness in this application.

[twiifm]

You can use logic to determine markets are random walk/ unpredictable.  Markets can be broken down to individual players.  Each player only has 3 possible moves sell-buy-hold.  All players play to make profit. The players only choice is follow trend, be contrarian or neutral.  Any given day more players join or leave.  The only time anything is predictable is when you get a volatility spike or dip and volatility always revert to mean.  This usually happens on significant news.  Most experienced traders know this from trading everyday.

Or you can also just use Occam's Razor.  If markets were predictable then everyone would be doing it.  If everyone did it there would not be a market.

Since I first commented in your thread a month ago I tried to Google "neural networks" and market prediction.  Seems like this was tried for a while in late 80's wary 90s but no big firms believe in this method.  The big trading firms have all the money to hire the best scientists & mathematicians in the world.  If they don't  believe in it then it probably doesn't work.  Most of the "quants" in Wall Street are hired to calculate statistical probabilities.  They make trading decisions based on long term statistical strategies like "statistical arbitrage" or they try to determine if the derivatives are correctly priced or not using concepts from Game theory, Kelly criterion gambling, etc..  This is not the same as price prediction!  I only see some fly-by-night amateur website or youtube channel claiming to be able to predict price using "neural networks".  And from what I've seen it's just some lame technical indicator.  

What I learned about "neural networks"  is that its mainly used to teach computers to recognize patterns.  Things that humans have no problem doing like speech recognition.  Seems to me like you are misapplying "neural networks" here.  First you claim that computers are better at recognizing patterns than humans.  This first point is already debatable.  Second you argue that there are patterns in market prices.  This is the Technical Analysis argument.  There might be some patterns occurring some of the time but its not consistent enough to create a complete trading system.  And since most trading firms are moving away from technical analysis and towards quantitative analysts, it should tell you that quantitative trading is far more profitable than technical trading.  Fundamental analysis is still dominant for the "investing" world though.

If you Googled neural networks then you should have found the numerous studies where they were used for stock price prediction successfully. Neural networks were not used much at all in the 80s. They were first created in 1943 and then barely used again until the 1990s/2000s. But this is irrelevant.

You are not the first person to make the statement "If price prediction were possible, everyone would be doing it". I'm sorry to be a dick here but this is just an extremely stupid statement. There are tons of things that are possible that not everybody is doing. One project that I was thinking of doing at one point was writing a mobile app that could recognize and identify bird calls (which there is a high demand for actually, and does not yet exist). I didn't follow through because I didn't have the data that would be required, but it is absolutely 100% doable. If we can recognize human speech and we can recognize music then we can definitely recognize bird calls. The statement that everybody would be doing this makes the false assumption that everybody knows how to do this and has the resources to do so. That is obviously false.

Furthermore, as someone who has a much better understanding of neural networks and their uses than you do, I can assure you that they do things that humans can't even come close to doing. Yes, they are used for speech recognition. They are used for computer vision as well. In fact, the first time I created a neural network was to recognize hand-written digits. It performed better than a human. Neural networks can solve the traveling sales person problem, which humans are obviously very bad at. They can be used for image compression. They can be used for countless other applications. As I've mentioned, commodity price prediction is also one of the standard uses of neural networks. This isn't something I'm inventing. However, I'm trying to be innovative in the manner in which I am applying neural networks. This is far from a "misapplication".

You argue that there are no consistent patterns in price fluctuations. The mere existence of my project 100% proves this wrong. My software finds patterns in the data, and these are patterns that no human could ever find. You are basing your arguments and assumptions here on what you see and believe as a human looking at an insurmountable amount of data. If my software was not finding consistent patterns, it would not be able to attain the average error figures that it does.

It seems like you are just dismissive of neural networks because you don't understand them. It is one thing to be a bit skeptical, but don't judge something unless you understand it. I can tell that your "research" of neural networks was extremely limited, so I recommend actually learning a bit about them if you are going to try to make an argument against their effectiveness in this application.

Hey I'm open minded so show me a link where neural networks were used as successful trading system.

If your program can find these patterns then why are the results consistently wrong?  Either there is no pattern or the patterns are too inconsistently occurring to generate a useful prediction

[K128kevin2]

Here, I found this from literally 10 seconds of Googling, most of which was typing in the search query: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~akar/EE671/report_stock.pdf

The predictions are absolutely not consistently wrong, as is proven by the charts showing predicted prices against actual prices. And even if it were consistently wrong, this would be just as useful as if it were consistently right. If it were consistently wrong, how would the 24 hour prediction have an average error of under 1.3%?

Edit: Seriously if you just google this there are tons of other studies and articles on the subject as well.

[spndr7]

If your program can find these patterns then why are the results consistently wrong?  Either there is no pattern or the patterns are too inconsistently occurring to generate a useful prediction

BTC-predictions makes public, all its projected trends, in real time, that would have lead to increase the difference between projected trend and real price.

Just like, the probing electron for its position changes it velocity.

[mikerbiker6]

Untill august 2016 I am bearish on bitcoin, since its inflation is larger than the inflation of USD.
Somewhere mid 2016 the block halving happens again. Which should be positive for bitcoin.

[blatchcorn]

Untill august 2016 I am bearish on bitcoin, since its inflation is larger than the inflation of USD.
Somewhere mid 2016 the block halving happens again.

Never go full retard

[mikerbiker6]

Untill august 2016 I am bearish on bitcoin, since its inflation is larger than the inflation of USD.
Somewhere mid 2016 the block halving happens again.

Never go full retard

Please expand

[twiifm]

Here, I found this from literally 10 seconds of Googling, most of which was typing in the search query: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~akar/EE671/report_stock.pdf

The predictions are absolutely not consistently wrong, as is proven by the charts showing predicted prices against actual prices. And even if it were consistently wrong, this would be just as useful as if it were consistently right. If it were consistently wrong, how would the 24 hour prediction have an average error of under 1.3%?

Edit: Seriously if you just google this there are tons of other studies and articles on the subject as well.

Isn't that just a thesis paper?  The guy describes how to apply ANN to price prediction and concludes that its fairly accurate.  But nowhere in the paper he gives evidence

I looked on your site where you compare 24h results compared to actual price and none of the data points were exact.  Most of your predictions were below the actual price.  Only one or two times you got it right.  How can you claim that you predicted anything?

More importantly how can someone make money trading this info?

[K128kevin2]

Isn't that just a thesis paper?  The guy describes how to apply ANN to price prediction and concludes that its fairly accurate.  But nowhere in the paper he gives evidence

I looked on your site where you compare 24h results compared to actual price and none of the data points were exact.  Most of your predictions were below the actual price.  Only one or two times you got it right.  How can you claim that you predicted anything?

More importantly how can someone make money trading this info?

Read the paper again, they describe experiments that they ran to predict stock prices on a data set. If this study doesn't satisfy you just choose one of the dozens of others on the same subject.

You really expected the predicted prices to be EXACTLY correct? I never claimed this to be true and, in fact, the average margin of error implies that the exact opposite is the case. I've never claimed that you can make money predicting with the data on my website, nor have I claimed that it is always accurate. I've explicitly said multiple times (and on the website itself) that I don't know whether or not you could make money trading based on this model, and that the predictions are not always right.

I really don't know what point you are trying to argue here (not that this is even an argument). I've explained to you why you are wrong about prices being unpredictable and I've explained to you why we know with certainty that there are patterns in the data. It seems like you are just trying to argue about my site for the sake of arguing yet you don't really have any points, so I don't know what you are doing here.

[twiifm]

Isn't that just a thesis paper?  The guy describes how to apply ANN to price prediction and concludes that its fairly accurate.  But nowhere in the paper he gives evidence

I looked on your site where you compare 24h results compared to actual price and none of the data points were exact.  Most of your predictions were below the actual price.  Only one or two times you got it right.  How can you claim that you predicted anything?

More importantly how can someone make money trading this info?

Read the paper again, they describe experiments that they ran to predict stock prices on a data set. If this study doesn't satisfy you just choose one of the dozens of others on the same subject.

You really expected the predicted prices to be EXACTLY correct? I never claimed this to be true and, in fact, the average margin of error implies that the exact opposite is the case. I've never claimed that you can make money predicting with the data on my website, nor have I claimed that it is always accurate. I've explicitly said multiple times (and on the website itself) that I don't know whether or not you could make money trading based on this model, and that the predictions are not always right.

I really don't know what point you are trying to argue here (not that this is even an argument). I've explained to you why you are wrong about prices being unpredictable and I've explained to you why we know with certainty that there are patterns in the data. It seems like you are just trying to argue about my site for the sake of arguing yet you don't really have any points, so I don't know what you are doing here.

You haven't shown prices are predictable.  Nobody has.  If somebody could do this theyd win a Nobel Prize