Hearst index - page 40
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 a fiction.
That the market is fundamentally driven by supply and demand (and overbought and oversold are actually just pretty words for the excess of one over the other) is kindergarten phenomenology (read, shamanism) which is not a quantitative model and therefore useless in practice. One might as well argue (and characteristically so!!!) that all market processes are driven by the Schrödinger equation.
Methods are a wagon and a small cart, but the coefficients on the above HOW to calculate?
Parameter identification is one of the most difficult problems in control theory. It does not even have a general method of solution, each system must be approached individually, and since there are no clear algorithms, intuition and the ability to think creatively will come in handy).
The fact that the market is fundamentally driven by supply and demand (and overbought and oversold are actually just pretty words for an excess of one over the other) is kindergarten phenomenology (read shamanism), which is not a quantitative model and therefore useless for practice. One might as well argue (and characteristically so!!!) that all market processes are driven by the Schrödinger equation.
So what is the problem?
The foundations are in hand. But then what about maths?
And intuition and creativity: nerve trading. Very profitable and very harmful. Kind of like kidney trading.
CCI on the chart and a bandage on the forehead.
Well, well, especially on the forex... Remember what happened to the quid on 9/11 and a bit later?
But then how's the maths?
Well, that's why it's useful (potentially). But you have to use your head seriously. And give up most of the crap that is called classic TA.
Well, well, especially in forex... Remember what happened with the quid on September 11 and a bit later?
That's when it's useful. But you gotta get your head on straight. And give up most of the crap that's called classic TA.
I don't say no. One is not a pig to the other.
Classics are sick with the same bacilli as econometrics.
There are no other bacilli, there are plenty of those.
Imho, I'm in the dark like everyone else.
The only thing I know: there is a POWERFUL system that is easy to select based on your psycho-type, your current price and your currency.
The word 'econometrics' does not work magic on me. It is already full of its own problems and there is too much arrogance because of the use of supposedly advanced statistical methods. But in reality it is the same primitive regressions.
And the classics are too obvious and do not go too deep to find hidden patterns that are not visible to the eye.
If there are patterns, they are carefully obscured and certainly not visually visible.
I'm getting a bit chatty today...
)
Go ahead, I didn't get into mine either.
It is often said that getting the problem right is half the solution. That's a fair point, but it's incomplete. We should clarify: Since the correct formulation of the problem is half the solution, it is up to the inventor to "correct" the problem. You can't demand, "Get the problem right, then I'll solve it. Getting the conditions of the problem right is the solution process. A perfectly correct inventive problem ceases to be a problem, and its solution becomes obvious.
At first, the problem is hidden in the inventive situation. You have to be able to isolate it. It also happens that the inventor is offered an already identified problem, but it is highlighted incorrectly. In such cases, you have to return from the wrong task to the original situation and then solve the new task.
G. S. Altshuller, A. B. Selyutsky, Wings for Icarus: How to Solve Inventive Problems, Petrozavodsk, Karelia, 1980
avtomat:
There are also times when an inventor is offered a task that is already highlighted, but highlighted incorrectly.
Here is a knowledgeable person writing)