a trading strategy based on Elliott Wave Theory - page 100
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
It's very encouraging that you are striving to get to the truth.
Thanks in no small part to your efforts, Vladislav has clarified much in this thread about his strategy. However, there is another side to this quest.
IMHO you should not rush from side to side in search of someone who can explain to you what you yourself do not yet understand. Understanding will come if you continue your own search.
And the attempt to gain that understanding easily and quickly, at someone else's expense, by blabbing Valadislav's strategy to the world, doesn't look very nice. Believe me !
Respect the right of the author, who found it possible to share his results with those interested in this forum, but did not give anyone the right to disseminate his strategy elsewhere, and even in this forum offered to significantly limit the details.
1. In fact, the distance between the methodology described in this thread and the ready-to-work expert is quite large. Not everyone will go through it for various reasons. And those who come to the ready to work the expert with no one under any pretext not to share them.
2. I dare by no means claim to be the author of the idea or anything else. Just wanted to check how seemingly simple and obvious to one person does not seem as simple and understandable to people with a comparable level of mathematical education.
3. The publication of the methodology on this forum has already entered the search engines and therefore there is simply no point in withholding anything from the inquisitive and interested. At least everyone who visits this forum, at least once, but this branch came out of curiosity and if necessary, to throw a link interested people who are engaged in this business. The number of visitors to the forum you can ask the administration.
4. Finally, if I really hurt Vladislava with my insistence, I offer him my deepest apologies.
Here is Vladislav's statement
Hence it follows that our earnings in this model is the equivalent of work, so work equals the difference in potentials, in this case the difference between entry and exit prices. It follows that the price difference is the potential difference, and it follows that the field is uniform, equipotentialities are straight lines parallel to the axis of OX (time) (a gradient for such a field if I am not mistaken will be the same in all its points and equal to about 0.71) Of course equate the price and the potential cannot be, because first we do not know where the lines of force are directed.
Anyway, nothing prevents us from moving along the parabola. :)
So it turns out that the source is above and below and it turns out that a serious event in the past will affect the current situation, depending only on the price distance from the price when the event took place, time has nothing to do with it, but it seems not, as the events that happened 100 years ago surely have little effect on the market.
It means that either my reasoning is wrong or the model with work in the form of price differences is not entirely correct.
You are right in general, but not in details.
Note this detail: if the price has returned to the starting point, then whatever function is represented by the potential, if work is measured by the potential difference between the starting point and the end point, then it is equal to zero. Your earnings are indeed proportional to the price difference, but work can be represented by a different function.
Regarding the source of the field. If one assumes that every event continues to have a forceful effect on price, no matter how long ago it happened, then such a model would not survive because of its complexity. It seems to me closer to the nature of the phenomenon to consider that the event is an energy impulse pushing the price up or down. Over time, this energy dissipates and therefore its impact falls exponentially. After a period of time, it can be neglected altogether.
This seems to be clear, but then what gives us a reason to talk about the potentiality of the field if we say that earnings and work are different things? How then does it follow that the closed loop work in our case will be 0?
You seem to have encountered a situation where the iCustom is constantly being initialised in the tester. As far as I understood, it happens when iCustom does not contain any buffers. If there is even one, iCustom will be initialised only once.
You seem to have encountered a situation where iCustom is constantly being initialised in the tester. As far as I understood, it happens when iCustom does not contain any buffer. If there is even one, iCustom will be initialised only once.
Candid, apparently you have started writing an EA. I'm surprised again (although I'm getting used to it), it turns out that solandr built Vladislav's indicator into the EA code for nothing.
ZS! We have made 1000 posts, it's like an anniversary. congratulations to all!