a trading strategy based on Elliott Wave Theory - page 92

New comment
 
2 Yurixx
The email you provided to yurixxx[at]gmail[dot]ru did not go through.

Don't worry, I saw your email. I will send it soon. It has to be decorated nicely. :-)
And my address isn't [dot]ru, it's [dot]com.

PS. Oops, you already removed your address. Too fast. I didn't see that one coming. :)
So try again to send me an email
 
Jhonny 17.07.06 19:49
Looking at this picture a thought occurred to me that maybe this notorious minimum of the functional is inherent to the channel with the parabola coefficient A->0. I.e. the field sources on top of the regression line and on the bottom counterbalance each other. <br / translate="no">.

Actually it's more interesting (in my opinion) this situation - whose tendency will be stronger.

 
I look at this picture and think:
What kind of guys are you so stubborn about this parabola?
You can see with your own eyes that you are pulling data over the model.
Where did this picture come from? The best RMS on the ISC? So what?

Whatever model you take, even the craziest one, you can always use OLS to fit an experiment onto it.
So what? Does it mean that this model can predict something or that it can be relied on with such
degree of certainty? Not in the slightest. Despite the fact that the more parameters, the lower the RMS.
This is exactly the "sort of optimization" that Vladislav was talking about. For me for instance the position of
left border of this parabola in the picture is enough to understand that it is all taken from the ceiling, fitting the story.

Before using a parabola (or any other function) as a price trajectory you need to do two things.
1. Show that this function follows from the model of the phenomenon and not from the head.
2. Find an external way to determine the anchor points of this function which will be used to determine its parameters.
Vladislav's model has all this, so it deserves attention. But it does not have a parabola.
 
What kind of guys are you so stubborn about this parabola?


:). I wanted to see what it is and whether it can be used, just had the idea to check how the parabola's coefficient A is related to energy (and whether it has any relation to it at all). And Solandr somehow put it, so I also wanted to look at the viability of the channels selected by the previously voiced "controversial" criteria, but as an approximating f take a parabola (this I long ago wanted to check but now I got up).
 
I think I have a theory about the quadratic form. It will take time to check.
 
I think I have a theory about the quadratic form. It will take time to verify it.

If you say so, why don't you make it public? Verification is verification, but on the level of ideas, you could do it right away.
 
It is not clear how much detail can be talked about. And if the version is correct - there is a risk of violating Vladislav's "license". Perhaps I will say this: perhaps the point of minimising it is to check the existence of the trajectory.
 
It is not clear how much detail can be talked about. And if the version is correct - there is a risk of violating Vladislav's "license". I guess I'll say this: perhaps the point of minimizing it is to check the existence of the trajectory. <br / translate="no">


Vladislav, licensed only the idea, but the implementation is already ours, in the sense of everyone. :о))
 
For myself, I interpret his 'licence' as follows: anyone who is able to reproduce it is allowed to use it, without the right to transfer it :). In that sense, lowering the bar of understanding is a breach of licence.
 
For myself, I interpret his 'licence' as follows: anyone who is able to reproduce it is allowed to use it, without the right to transfer it :). In that sense, lowering the bar of understanding is a breach of license. <br / translate="no">.


So we'll never know what your idea is? :о(
1...858687888990919293949596979899...309
New comment