a trading strategy based on Elliott Wave Theory - page 82
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
Don't you guys think you're getting too caught up in the SCR23>SCO condition. ....
.........
IMHO
Yes I told long ago that this condition is strange, and frankly I did not find where Vladislav told about it, although maybe I searched badly? I think he said so
By the way I commented on it long ago. And all the pictures I showed were without this condition.
.... quite ignoring the existence and provability of the central limit theorem of statistics - any convergent distribution (which means that the area under the distribution curve is finite - more strictly: the non-self integral converges) converges to normal with increasing degrees of freedom. So you do not really care about the shape of the curve to estimate the area - it is sufficient that the number is finite - then the estimates can be applied.
Did he approximate the distribution curve by Taylor's series, then integrated it and looked if the integral converges or not, in short, the further into the woods the more firewood.
Don't you guys think you're getting too hung up on the RMS23>SCO condition. This is essentially just a convergence criterion, and convergence by itself can neither be a channel identification condition, nor a tipping point condition.
Moreover, the channel selection algorithm that has been investigated here for several pages assumes that recalculation is performed on every new bar. The result, as you have all seen, is that the channels float. So it turns out that you are applying RMS23>RMSCO criterion every time to other channels. But at the same time you compare them to each other. I think this is just an example of not very correct optimization. We all know that whichever piece of history we take, we can always find parameters for which even a bad EA will be profitable.
It seems, but we have to look at it from all sides. It's just that such a simple frontal route is less labor-intensive, an alternative algorithm has already formed in my mind, but the very idea of starting to implement it frightens me with the complexity of the algorithm :)
So far, here's the calculation of Kinetic Energy. Next are Potential and Hamilton Friction, then we will see. Of course there is also solandr' s parabola check, but all these things are technically simple. When I run out of simple variants, I will move on to complex ones.
... convergence in itself can be neither a condition of channel identification nor a condition of determining tipping points.
Moreover, the channel selection algorithm that has been explored here for several pages assumes that recalculation is done at each new bar. The result, as you have all seen, is that the channels float. So it turns out that you are applying RMS23>RMSCO criterion every time to other channels. But at the same time you compare them to each other. I think this is just an example of not very correct optimisation...
The question is whether the channels are real objects. If they are (it is what I am inclined to believe so far), then the instability of characteristics in time only proves that there is no invariant among these characteristics. Your algorithm, explicitly or implicitly, assumes that at any given moment the market can be described by a fixed number of parameters (3-4 channels) and they should be recalculated only in case of an obvious inconsistency (breakdown). If at that moment, for example, 5 channels exist in the market, not taking into account one of them will lead to incorrect estimation of probabilities. As for the "notorious" :) condition RMS23>RMS, it looks too strict. And it's not about wanting more channels (for intraday games, for example), but it's about the above-mentioned possibility of losing a real object.
And what did you choose as the charge (mass for the gravitational field, electric charge for the electric field, etc.) when calculating the kinetic energy of the price (or energy of what is shown on the graph). The velocity, I think, is the ratio of the price difference of the beginning and the end of the channel to its length, although it is not unambiguous at all.
And what did you choose as the charge (mass for gravitational field, electric charge for electric field, etc.) when calculating the kinetic energy of the price (or energy of what is shown in the graph). The velocity, I think, is the ratio of the price difference of the beginning and the end of the channel to its length, although it is not unambiguous at all.
The mass for kinetic energy is 1 , as for potential energy.
Anyway, it's not clear what you get.
And as my algorithm is based on change of sign (SPR23-SCO), the program was not able to detect the only channel.
So that's the problem. While I was thinking and wanted to make a screenshot of this unique situation, a new bar was born and one channel appeared. Then I decided to increase the depth to 10000 and the second channel appeared. The fact is that the second series of channels ends beyond the 3000 bar mark!!!
Candid, it's silly to argue with this, but which option do you suggest? I see 3 immediate challenges at the moment.
1. To run the script on the history and build an indicator of the number of channels on each bar (will depend on the depth of search)
2. --//---- and build an indicator of average likelihood (oscillator type), - will depend on the number of channels and/or depth of search.
3. Build swings on the history (on the diaries) and build channels on them. In these channels analyze various characteristics for the identification of the stability criterion.
General considerations:
1) the shorter the channel - the less RMS/(RMS23) it will have, but at the same time the probability of its destruction will be higher.
2) We need a criterion for fixing the left border of the channel
3) We need a criterion for destroying the channel (I think we have one)