How do you decide on a trend? - page 2
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
in theory. That's what the DCs teach us. In practice, such traders do not live long. Because, as I wrote, there is no flat in the market. Traders invent a flat and think that based on this idea they can make some money. And the result is failure. We should build a strategy based on the real situation. TS asked me how to make up his mind to separate the flat from the trend, so I wrote him a classic.
How much money have you made, colleague, to throw around such serious conclusions?
on forex, huh? Yeah, I dabbled in manual trading a few years ago. Got thirty grand off a fiver on a hunch. Then I got into robotics, realizing I couldn't handle the stress. I spent several years searching for the truth in the RC's noodles. Then I had an epiphany and now I am waiting for the money from my brainchild, which I believe is based on the real market model, and not on those fantasies, with which the whole Internet and the minds of billion army of traders feed the percentage of traders with epiphany.
That is to say, so far there is certainty of an epiphany but no material confirmation (maybe it is not an epiphany?). The profit indicated is hopefully in dollars. All in all, the teachings are light, go for it....
That is to say, so far there is certainty of an epiphany but no material confirmation (maybe it is not an epiphany?). The profit indicated is hopefully in dollars. All in all, the teachings are light, go for it...
on forex, huh? Yeah, I dabbled in manual trading a year ago. I made about 30 grand off a fiver on a hunch. Then I got into robotics, realizing I couldn't handle the stress. I spent several years searching for the truth in the RC's noodles. Then I had an epiphany and now I'm waiting for the money from my brainchild, which I believe is based on the real market model, and not on those fantasies that saturate the whole Internet and the minds of billions army of traders who feed the golden percentage of traders with epiphanies.
We have already heard about your Grail. That you're not willing to share the full algorithm with your colleagues is reasonable. But I'm sure you won't get any better if you tell us your way of determining the trend)). Or at least don't waste your time with negative statements, if you're not planning to replace them with your theses. If you don't care what your colleagues think about you, you may swear.
In my opinion, the noodles by the very fact that they have been distributed to the masses are NOT noodles, but instructionsIf we try to analyze it from the opponent's point of view (brokerage companies, market makers, etc.) then we can guess how they will act in response, to shear sheep for stoploops and to call Kolyan, so we should know and respect RC's noodles and classical technical analysis.
And in general, apart from tester charts you have no proof so far in order to rank yourself among the "insipid". So stop beating your chest, this is not the kind of community that can make you popular in a positive sense.
We have already heard about your Grail. That you're not willing to share the full algorithm with your colleagues is reasonable. But I'm sure you won't get less interested if you tell us your way of determining the trend)). Or at least don't waste your time with negative statements, if you're not planning to replace them with your theses. If you don't care what your colleagues think about you, you may swear.
In my opinion, the noodles by the very fact that they have been distributed to the masses are NOT noodles, but instructionsIf we try to analyze it from the opponent's point of view (brokerage companies, market makers, etc.) then we can guess how they will act in response, to shear sheep for stoploops and to call Kolyan, so we should know and respect RC's noodles and classical technical analysis.
And in general, apart from tester charts you have no proof so far in order to rank yourself among the "insipid". So stop beating your chest, this is not the community where it can make you popular in a positive sense.
Do you mean to find out the direction of the trend? Because there is always a trend and it is not necessary to determine its existence. If I tell you, it would be revealing of the algorithm and therefore unreasonable. Well, what about the beating in the chest? So it is emotions and joy that, firstly, everything is simple, the market has turned out to be simple and obvious. And secondly anger - how could it not be seen before? And all this is due to the imposed limited field of view. All this propaganda of "people's analysis" serves only one purpose - to blur the view. Forget everything you knew. Try to understand for yourselves what is going on.
The fact that there is a trend at some scale (timeframe) is indisputable and its direction can also be found elementary, i.e. by time filtering with a period longer than the noise corridor and the difference of neighboring values.The whole point is that the instantaneous trend itself cannot be considered an analogue of speed in physics. Extrapolation based only on the trend, in my opinion, is no different from classical technical analysis, which, as I understand it, you are denying. And if so, why should I hide the algorithm used to calculate the trend direction when it is clear from the formulation of the problem. The main idea is not that it exists, but that it may change, and the exact place where it may happen is determined by technical analysis, because the crowd usually acts exactly as it is written, and makers may only shoot at a spike on the reversal to hit stops and test the market, but anyway the market will basically follow the laws of technical analysis.
The problem is that these "laws" are not like the natural sciences, they are like alchemy, and every alchemist "cooks" his own philosopher's stone.
The fact that there is a trend at some scale (timeframe) is indisputable and its direction can also be found elementary, i.e. by time filtering with a period longer than the noise corridor and the difference of neighboring values.The whole point is that the instantaneous trend itself cannot be considered an analogue of speed in physics. Extrapolation based only on the trend, in my opinion, is no different from classical technical analysis, which, as I understand it, you are denying. And if so, why should I hide the algorithm used to calculate the trend direction when it is clear from the formulation of the problem. The main idea is not that it exists, but that it may change, and the exact place where it may happen is determined by technical analysis, because the crowd usually acts exactly as it is written, and makers may only shoot at a spike on the reversal to hit stops and test the market, but anyway the market will basically follow the laws of technical analysis.
The problem is that these "laws" are not like those of natural sciences, but rather like alchemy, and each alchemist "cooks" his own philosopher's stone.