hats off to the mods wednesday, page-47

I guess nobody followed through on my post-election figures for the stock market.

They are a set of random numbers. An average of a set of random numbers doesn't change the fact that the results are random. There is no pattern.

Here's the set:

It's a set of random numbers. Wanna bet that the average of those random numbers will occur next year? Try that at the casino on the roulette wheel. Take the last 10 numbers - average that and bet on that number. Well - you might win - but the results are statistically certain. Ask the casino. And they're not in your favour.

The much vaunted 5th year of the decennial cycle is a set of random numbers. It is true that it is the only one in the decennial cycle that has always been positive. That doesn't change the fact that the range has been extra-ordinarily wide. Also, the set is too small to have any statistical significance. Being random, it would be just as good a bet that the next year would be negative as positive.


Redbacka