FOREX - Trends, Forecasts and Implications 2015(continued) - page 1940
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
as always, all the gurus.... =)
They remind me of blind kittens wandering around the room, poking their faces into something and trying to guess what it is.
Imagine, they can't see anything, their brains are pristine, and there's a dog, and it's good if their mother pulls them away in time.
It's the kind of thing that really makes you want to spit!
Just don't choke on it.
How else can we interpret the line describing the average distance travelled per unit time?
The construction is based on the lines bounding the channel, the median of the channel, the horizontal lines passing through the extremums and the vertical projections of the intersection points of the above mentioned lines. These projections themselves will form the points through which the levels pass. The rest are derivatives. Read the rules of drawing, everything is clear there.
Actually, I have a question for you - do you understand the difference between absolute and relative? It doesn't matter what it is visually. When scaled, the resulting shapes will be SAMPLE with a similarity factor equal to the scaling factor. I.e. the ratios of model elements (all - angles, segments) will be unchanged.
How else can we interpret the line describing the average distance travelled per unit time?
The construction is based on the lines bounding the channel, the median of the channel, the horizontal lines passing through the extremums and the vertical projections of the intersection points of the above mentioned lines. These projections themselves will form the points through which the levels pass. The rest are derivatives. Read the rules of drawing, everything is clear there.
Actually, I have a question for you - do you understand the difference between absolute and relative? It doesn't matter what it is visually. When scaled, the resulting shapes will be SIGNIFICANT with a similarity factor equal to the scaling factor. That is, the ratios of model elements (all - angles, segments) will be unchanged.
To be precise, the basis of the construction is just one line connecting the extreme points of the previous movement.(To the question of the difference between absolute and relative, from your point of view is this segment absolute or relative?)
Then a channel is hovered over this segment (with the dubious name of median). From the latest extremum a line is perpendicular to the edge of the channel whose length, for some unknown reason, becomes the price component of the square. And the time component of that square for some reason becomes the cathetus opposite to the "reflection angle" of the "median". That's why the given way of building has nothing in common with Gann, because the sides of this square have a strictly definite constant for each symbol, and you don't even have a hint of regulating the price-time ratio and every building forms arbitrary ratios.
So, only the line segment connecting the extremes of the previous movement is taken from the chart. Everything else makes no logical or mathematical sense. Correct me if I'm wrong.
We'll talk about horizontals later. And I also have a request, you don't have to treat your opponent with notes of superiority, if you don't want to get a sarcastic answer.
To be precise, the basis of the construction is just one line connecting the extreme points of the previous movement.(To the question of the difference between absolute and relative, from your point of view is this segment absolute or relative?)
Then a channel is hovered over this segment (with the dubious name of median). From the latest extremum a line is perpendicular to the edge of the channel whose length, for some unknown reason, becomes the price component of the square. And the time component of that square for some reason becomes the cathetus opposite to the "reflection angle" of the "median". That's why the given way of building has nothing in common with Gann, because the sides of this square have a strictly definite constant for each symbol, and you don't even have a hint of regulating the time-price ratio; every building forms arbitrary ratio.
So, only the line segment connecting the extremes of the previous movement is taken from the chart. Everything else makes no logical or mathematical sense. Correct me if I'm wrong.
We'll talk about horizontals later. And I also have a request, you don't have to treat your opponent with notes of superiority, if you don't want to get a sarcastic answer.
What about these graphical constructions, there is no fish there, even the fact that Gunn himself has earned something from them is questionable.
No, then no. The other would argue, but I won't.
Although it is just a method of data aggregation, no worse than candlesticks, bars, Renko, Kaga, clusters and many other things. Nison wrote a book about candlesticks. And they trade on price patterns. This is a pattern, but it is repeatable and scalable. It takes information from the previous movement and suggests a way to interpret it. Or is stochastics better?
No, then no. The other would argue, but I won't.
Although it is just a method of data aggregation, no worse than candlesticks, bars, Renko, Kaga, clusters and many other things. Nison wrote a book about candlesticks. And they trade on price patterns. This is a pattern, but it is repeatable and scalable. It takes information from the previous movement and suggests a way to interpret it. Or is a stochastic better?
This is all highlighted bullshit. Clusters contain information about trades.
I durked about the stochastic, don't you get it?)
Real trades data, only from them you can draw conclusions and open trades based on these conclusions, all the rest is bullshit.
I don't know what to do with them, but I'm not sure what to do with them.
To be precise, the basis of the construction is just one line connecting the extreme points of the previous movement.(To the question of the difference between absolute and relative, from your point of view is this segment absolute or relative?)
Then a channel is hovered over this segment (with the dubious name of median). From the latest extremum a line is perpendicular to the edge of the channel whose length, for some unknown reason, becomes the price component of the square. And the time component of that square for some reason becomes the cathetus opposite to the "reflection angle" of the "median". That's why the given way of building has nothing in common with Gann, because the sides of this square have a strictly definite constant for each symbol, and you don't even have a hint of regulating the price-time ratio and every building forms arbitrary ratios.
So, only the line segment connecting the extremes of the previous movement is taken from the chart. Everything else makes no logical or mathematical sense. Correct me if I'm wrong.
We'll talk about horizontals later. And I also have a request, no need to address your opponent with a note of superiority if you do not wish to receive a sarcastic response.
I don't understand what you are trying to accuse me of and what you are trying to argue without having read the channeling rules. Already in your first sentence you are trying to impose on me your view of the rules of construction, which do not correspond to the original. How am I supposed to respond or argue with you? You are too lazy to go to the link and read a post with the rules of construction and an explanation of the meaning of this construction, while accusing me of mythical disregard. Well you don't want to try the method, don't. I'm not imposing it on you. I have my vision, you have yours. You think that your method works, having completely closed it (you wrote that construction parameters are the great secret), and at the same time, are trying to convince me that the geometry of construction of a OPEN OPEN-access model, in which no one could find faults, is wrong. I, on the other hand, believe that this model is flawless, and I cannot believe in your method because it is a black box to me. And I don't believe in promises. You write about the arbitrariness of the price-time relationship in the model. And yet you ignore the call to read the rules. That is, without evidence. I suggest that you once again stop the pointless polemics, the method I presented is of no value to you and therefore I see no point in continuing the conversation.
Good luck.