Bill Williams and his strategies... - page 12
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
Let's try to forget for a while everything we have read, watched and listened to as a result of being on financial markets. And think about what we actually have when we open the terminal? We have information about the price P, volume V and market volatility (tension) F = f(P) / f(V). The time goes by - the price, volume and the market calm change. The speed of these changes is also changing. As we all know - everything comes to an end sometime. Price and volume will not reach the current +/- infinity, nor will the acceleration of rises and falls. So, one day the system will reach the next unstable equilibrium and we will be at the top or at the bottom of the price wave. The output will be, as usual, the number P, which does not say anything about the fact that the input information structure has changed into the similar to itself antistructure. So we do not need an analysis of faceless numbers P, V and F, but a search of optimal structure of self-organized information on a given time interval. And the question arises at once, does it have a measure at all? Well, they will say to me - but what about all sorts of indices and graphical constructions? So? And they all have different measurements and scale. Everyone likes RSI for the 20 and 80 levels, Elliott Waves must have 5 or 3 impulse waves, the length of the shadow of a bull hammer (just listen) must be significantly longer than the body, the waves with different periods must cross somewhere there, etc.
So, gentlemen, what shall we measure with? Trending sticks, fibs or parabolic? )))
I am personally interested (not disinterestedly) in the capacity of the market. Therefore the declared mt5 glasses and options volume are very interesting.
It is that part of the TA which makes the cliches about the lack of "economic reasoning" out of unknown origins.
;)
But verification can be made much more difficult by making it more realistic. At each given moment, we have to consider at least dozens of swings at different scales, look at the Phoebe grid that is produced, and do a clustering of the levels. The task is very difficult. I have not solved it.
I am personally interested (not uninterested) in the capacity of the market. therefore the declared glasses in MT5 and the volume of options are very interesting.
It is that part of the TA which knocks the whiners out of their asses about the lack of "economic justification".
;)
The whistleblower is a bit confused - how did you get from the volume of options to the economics of TA methods? That's a bit too long a logical chain for me.
The TA is used in all markets and in the futures market too. And volume in the options market only makes sense in the options market.
The whistleblower is a bit confused - how did you get from the volume of options to the economic reasoning of TA methods? That's a bit too long a logical chain for me.
TA is used in all markets and in the futures market too. And volume in the options market only makes sense in the options market.
Write Guru!
And look deeper into economic reasons.
All commitments are causal.
(added) And change the LIKE!
That's where I got into the discourse.
;)
I am personally interested (not disinterestedly) in the market capacity. therefore the declared mt5 glasses and options volume are very interesting. it is the piece of TA that knocks the cliques (who know not where) about the lack of "economic justification" out of their feet.
Write a Guru!
And look deeper for economic reasons.
Any obligation is causation.
(added) And they change LICENSITY!
That's where I entered the discourse.
;)
You're all for mocking! Write something clever for the people!
You were asked - how do we measure?
This "fragment" just doesn't knock the ground out of the "cliques of the unknowing". On the contrary - volume, one of the few fundamental quantities of FA. Volume is precisely the building block that connects price, volatility and time. It is volume that is part of the fundamental supply-demand relationship. That's why I wouldn't equate volume exclusively with TA, on the contrary, it is more important in terms of FA.
The FA never trades in ticks.
And I like Prival's advice on the minutes...
;)
Of course, if you draw hundreds of fibs, and it's pretty easy to do, many of those hundreds will coincide with market reversals.
Too standard argument, I've heard it a thousand times before.
Firstly, you have to cluster the levels cleverly here. Each Fiba has its own strength, depending on the strength of the swing, the number of the Fiba itself and the time when it was formed. And clustering has to be done with this strength of each level in mind. But first, you have to learn how to assign the right weights to the Fibas themselves. This is the main problem here.
In short, the chorus could go on forever. Our positions are unlikely to change until a convincing argument is found.
You're only here to mock! Write something clever for the people!
You were asked - what do we measure with?
There is, as they say, a parallel branch.
;)
And the theory of expansion and self-similarity with different phi - I don't remember when we discussed it with Alexey.
The Fibo grid is not the only one. But it is "golden"!
ФА никогда не разменивается на тики.
А мне нравится по совету Prival на минутках...
What's that got to do with tics? I haven't said a word about them. Prival suggests to remove time from the charts and cut the equivolume bars. But it does not change the situation. As far as I know, the TS results on such charts are the same as on temporary ones.
As for the chorus, that's a good point. It has to be noted. Everyone uses what he wants and everyone sees what he sees. Arguments, even if they exist, are not needed on either side. We need faith in something, and it doesn't matter whether it works or not, because if there is no faith, then there is nothing at all.