a trading strategy based on Elliott Wave Theory - page 97

 
Thank you, Rosh, I've got it figured out. I have to catch up with everyone else, so you're right - I'm at the construction stage and the formulas are only good for construction. And I lost sight of the fact that I still have to calculate probabilities. Tried to swoop and calculate the probability with a simplified formula - didn't work.... Gamma function comes out in full force. So I put it aside and decided to use an array, too.

As for the minimum of a functional - here is my version of the solution to this problem.

Well-known problem statement:

Given: A sequence of channels
Find: Functionals of these channels, choose the channel with the minimum functionality, find the turning area.

Wrong.
Let's turn the situation upside down

. Here we have: a reversal zone; it has the minimum of the functional of the function with which we can describe the given price movement (what function can describe a price reversal?)

Find: the channel that corresponds most to the reversal zone, which has the minimum of the functional of the function and evaluate what characteristics of the channel influence its correspondence to the reversal zone.

Solution:

Take a sheet of paper and draw a parabola (grash is right, we don't need the parabola itself)
Draw a point - the minimum of the functional (function extremum).
Draw a consistent regression line.
We are drawing the channels.
Visually, we are looking for the most appropriate channel and estimating its characteristics.

Generally, it is clear from here that we do not need either the function function or the channels or the function itself while the solution is much simpler.


I didn't get to the practical implementation.

P.S. Beer is on you. :))
 
P.S. You owe me a beer. :))

I thought they wrote this afterwards, but it's before. :)
 
З.Ы. С вас пиво. :))

I thought it was written afterwards, but it turns out before. :)


Better "instead" ......:))
 
Can I ask you a question? It might be dumb :-) but I'm at the very beginning... I've started to catch up a bit about the criterion for selecting the channels that best fit the condition of a reversal, but I can't understand about the methodology of their (channels) practical construction for the system....
 
Can I ask you a question? It might be dumb :-) but I'm at the very beginning... I've started to catch up a bit about the criterion for selecting the channels that best fit the condition of the pivot, but I can't understand about the methodology of their (channels) practical construction for the system.... <br / translate="no">

To be honest the question is not dumb, but a little bit unclear :). And in general the whole problem is that in principle we are practically no different from you, we have not invented this system, and therefore prompt and tell is not quite good, in the sense that you get a broken phone, I suspect that none of us do not understand this theory as its creator, so your fresh ideas can be useful to us all. :)
 
Here is the first picture of the new version of the indicator. It is not yet ready for the tester, so the question of hitting remains open. But it has become much heavier, it takes about 10 seconds to calculate the depth of 6200 bars on one bar.



2006.07.25 01:20:34 VGChannels EURUSD,M30: Calculated bars: 100, Search depth in bars: 6200, Time of calculation: 984765 ms 2006.07.25 01:20:34 VGChannels EURUSD,M30: Channels on the last bar: 2052, Selected on the last bar: 16, Working channels: 7, Of which valid: 3
 
Here is the first picture of the new version of the indicator. It is not yet ready for the tester, so the question of hitting remains open. But it has become drastically heavier, it takes about 10 seconds to calculate the depth of 6200 bars on one bar.


I have a feeling that you drew the channels by 2/3 of a sample, you probably forgot at the last moment to substitute the full length in the channel drawing function. :)
 
I would rephrase the question somewhat: would you manually draw the channels like this? That is, would you believe what you see?
We need to match the easily seen channels with mathematically valid criteria, don't we?
 
Jhonny:
I have a feeling you drew channels 2/3 of a sample, you must have forgotten at the last moment to substitute the full length in the channel drawing function. :)

:) Channels are drawn in the last third of the sample. That is, if we introduce the concepts of design and control samples, the channels are drawn from the beginning of the control sample.

Rosh:
I would slightly rephrase the question: manually would you draw channels like that? That is, would you believe what you see?
After all, we need to match easily seen channels with mathematically valid criteria.


I just wouldn't want to set the task that way. An ideal indicator should sense a channel before it can be seen. If the channels do represent real objects, this should be possible. Let's get back to reality :), you can draw a lot of channels. Especially if intermediate extrema are taken into account - and even in this picture it is clear that channel borders crossing them work out quite well.
The main thing that prevents me from switching to a tester - I do not understand what the indicator should display :). I like the probabilistic approach the further I go. Obviously the channels have sharp bounds, and you can't get them in a Stuyudent(or normal, whatever) distribution model. In this sense, the problem statement in terms of potentials is preferable. Apparently I will say heresy now :), but there is an impression that asymmetrical channels are rather frequent, they obviously do not fit to the first approach.
By the way, on the subject of channel selection. I am not sure that we should strive to keep only one channel of slightly similar ones. After all, there is a "fan" figure in tehanalysis. By the way :), in the picture below you can see a figure like a fan.
 
Hmm, I must have lied, the channels seem to be drawn from the beginning of the calculation sample, otherwise the last one is hard to explain. I just used different rendering options and must have got mixed up.