F - page 17
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
thank you for appreciating my knowledge (you must be talking about me).
I confirm, the one I saw used 3 wizards. in fact - MACD. as I have repeatedly said before, there is no smell of ACS there. i don't see the point in drawing up structural diagrams for such elementary things, and i don't ask for it.
Now, that's a little dismissive... um, "elementary"...?
Representation in the language of structural diagrams gives a good view of the problem. And allows for much more meaningful transformations.
For example, the same MACD is an open circuit system. And let me stress that this will be another system - not MACD in its classical form, but a tracking system with properties different from those of the initial open-loop system.
But of course, I will not ask, demand or force (here I will continue on my own).
Elementary, you say... But any system, however complex, consists of a very small set of elementary links. And without "elementary" there is no system, just not, not at all.
but I don't see anything to be ashamed of in the use of wigs, you don't have to be ashamed, everyone has done it at some point and some continue to do it up to a very respectable age.
Actually, you, as an ACS specialist, should know that the "wrecker" is an aperiodic link, which, by the way, belongs to the category of elementary links. It is, in fact, the most common link in nature. Talking about shame, embarrassment and other things of the same kind means that you do not understand the essence of the matter.
Although you may be making this awkward joke...
That's where you're wrong...
Representation in a structured diagram language gives a good view of the problem. And allows for much more meaningful transformations.
For example, the MACD is an open loop system. And let me stress that this will be a different system - not MACD in its classical form, but a tracking system having its own properties different from those of the initial open-loop system.
But of course, I will not ask, demand or force (here I will continue on my own).
Elementary, you say... But any system, however complex, consists of a very small set of elementary links. And without "elementary" there is no system, just not, not at all.
So, we have MACD as a certain algorithm with input and output, put something on the input and check the output.
I wonder how you can send to the MACD input something different (and the main thing in what way?) from the MT4 quote?
In case you're wondering, the formula there is an uncomplicated one ....
The system works. ...
The system works!
Where are the tests? Why aren't you doing it?
I'm not here first... and they won't reveal the essence of the system?)
The idea is too promising in my opinion to share it so easily. Both from my experience of developing it and from my observations of it (I'm talking about my idea, not the methods Oleg is peddling). There's not much left of the author's idea, just a push in one possible direction. For which I thank him very much.
My ideas, I share with the only person who makes a feasible contribution and assists in the development.
But if I suddenly need help from the community, I will organize a branch of my own. And here I try to at least somehow encourage Oleg, and give him some of my thoughts for general improvement (I hope).
It's up to him whether he listens or not. But I am personally interested in making it work for him.
You're welcome :)
It will all work out!!!
If I manage to be on Baikal this year, I'll tell you my thoughts when I meet him ;)
I'm no expert, but I'll give it a shot...
So MAKD... We have two MAs, i.e. two price averages. Theoretically, we obtain probability (taking into account the probability of price behavior of 33-up, 33-down and 33-flat, i.e. at most, only 1 out of 3 entries is correct) 0.33/2=0.165 instead of 0.33, as two MAs are used, and the higher the period, the greater the averaging and therefore the less probability of a correct entry at higher risk.
Codes will not be handed out.
No one is talking about code. Explain how the tractor drives. The code will already be my problem.
In the first post of this thread there is a link to the backstory... There I tried to explain the point, from different angles, but it proved to be a futile exercise...
And that's why the situation is like this in the end :
joo:
.... It's not just you who doesn't understand the topicstarter.
"The market is a controlled dynamic system"
Decided to do some digging in my old archives on the forums... And a lot of interesting things came to mind....
I think it would be worthwhile to give some thoughts here, which I think, from my current bell tower, might be useful to get the big picture.