Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 1751
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yay, the bug was found )
when converting matrices instead of 10 it was 1)
well that was a peek....
say how many times...
fuck.........n so don't want to scare off.......
Yay, the bug was found )
when converting matrices instead of 10 it was 1)
well that was a peek....
Say, how much is enough...
fuck.........nn so don't want to scare off.......
gloating?
gloating?
No, really, I just know the condition, it doesn't happen that way... and here's the damn thing, it really does not happen like that....))) what's there to gloat about))) Pure experiment simply ))) But the buzz, even if you catch it a little bit)))))))
No, really just know the condition
poop condition ))
state of poo ))
Yeah... understands... it just seemed that the work was not in vain)))) and we have to keep digging again)))) In fact, when there were floppy disks and the code was 3-4 meters, we wrote on 3 floppy disks, and now ... all three aren't readable aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand)
I'm not a mathematician, but I was thinking about this. Some traders use different indicators and oscillators, some use chart analysis, some use fundamental, candlestick, technical analysis and others. Some traders use 5-minute charts, others use hourly or daily charts. But all these traders will lose with nearly 100% probability at once or later. How can this be? The market is trying to create an obvious situation for all of these traders at any given time. The trader thinks and opens a deal. You can't create it for all at once, so the market works sequentially or for some group at a time. Mathematicians, why is it so difficult to calculate and mathematically describe what is the obvious situation for the trader. And create a system that trades against the expectations of traders and common sense. After all it is simple. The obvious situation for a trader is when it seems that it is possible to earn.
FinMarket is very sneaky! 8) This is also, according to my observations, and comes from its nature, by definition. This creature is very cunning and bloodthirsty, otherwise it would have been sucked out 8) In 2011 there was the article about Kohonen neuronet at this forum. Taking that work as a base (https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/283), then I started to whip up my modification. I wanted to set the problem in the following way: the NS collects a collection of patterns on history (what kind of patterns? there were different variants). In working mode, the task of the NS is: to determine, identify fresh, incoming patterns. If there are similar patterns near us, the probability of a market bump increases. We work in the other direction. If the patterns are still repeating, the probability increases. If the estimated probability exceeds the threshold - we trade on the market "pattern destruction". I abandoned that work with NS (the project turned out to be quite time-consuming, and I abandoned it). Every normal person wants to stably earn. A trader wants the price moves in a monotonous way, drawing the shapes that he has recently seen (at least, subconsciously, he expects it). We want stability, repetition, and the financial market uses this natural (in this case) weakness. The market breaks patterns. If we've seen a trend, it's probably already over. And, the next time we expect the same reversal - but no way! It will give us something new. It's the same with the other "movement patterns" that we try to identify and trade. Have you ever noticed that? It seems to me that a trading system should predict what seems most unexpected to us at that moment. Predict the foul 8)
Yay, the bug was found )
when converting matrices instead of 10 it was 1)
well that was a peek....
Say, how much is enough...
Lamba cried in the cabin
))))
Libet's experiment (about the lack of free will) from a philosopher's point of view. He says that neuroscientists confuse free will with free action.