Breaking through the morning flat - page 23
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 all depends on which patterns the system uses. If mathematical, they will work everywhere, on any pair, on any market. If they are behavioural, they will probably be limited to certain clusters of pairs. Although, for example, the rule of levels on "round" numbers works everywhere, why wouldn't fibs also work if it does work. If the strategy only works on one pair, only at night and only in one particular DC, that's ... you know.
You missed the point. Then everyone kept saying that the championship showed something. And my test showed that Bettor's result could have been obtained at random, and therefore the championship result could not be considered proof of the workability of auto-trading. My test didn't say anything about the Batter itself, I wasn't testing the Batter, I was testing the championship.
Statistical significance is determined by whether the same result can be obtained at random. If we test a method and find that exactly the same result could be obtained randomly with, for example, a 5% probability, then that method is deemed to have failed. Even if it is a super system - screenshots, stats and students - it is considered unproven to work.
I think you missed the point.
Your test only showed that random can give a result... nothing more... I don't think it proved anything else.
the results of the championship 3 years in a row - show that you can write a standalone system that works for a period of time, even 3 months - it's quite possible!
the result of the bettor in 2007 is good - from the fact that his network was perfectly trained to buy the trend within the framework of the average movements of a pair for 2007
my 2007 result was similarly obtained by pre-training - adjusting exactly to the buy-trend
it only shows that BETTER had anticipated an increase in 3 months, it would have gone down and would not have been like that ...
similarly, if i had added a new rule in 2008, the buy/sell priority would have been on the front pages
like it was in 2007 when I added buy priority
in 2008 I did a complete symmetry in the script ... although I did want to give some priority to sell
this is exactly in favour of semi-automatic machines - which do it much more efficiently
than in systems with no possibility of such modification
it is not realistic to run a semi-automatic machine on a long stretch, but in the dynamics it is not difficult and reasonable to give priority
it is not the task of mathematical justification to invent a grail
--
that's why I have and will always give preference to adjustable semiautomatics
not mythical systems - "that work anywhere and anytime" - life is short in fact ... It's a pity to give it up in search of grail, though it's tempting
I think it's you who's missing the point.
Your test only showed that random can give a result... nothing more... I don't think it proved anything else.
the results of the championship 3 years in a row - show that you can write a standalone system that works for a period of time, even 3 months - it's quite possible!
the result of the bettor in 2007 is good - from the fact that his network was perfectly trained to buy the trend within the average movements of a pair for 2007
my 2007 result was exactly the same as the one obtained by pre-training - by adjusting exactly to the buy-trend
it only shows that BETTER had anticipated an increase in 3 months, it would have gone down and would not have been like that ...
similarly, if i had added a new trend to my Expert Advisor in 2008, the sell order would have been on the front pages
like it was in 2007 when I added buy priority
in 2008 I did a complete symmetry in the script ... although I did want to give some priority to sell
it's just in favour of semi-automatic machines - which do it much more efficiently
than in systems with no possibility of such modification
it is not realistic to run a semi-automatic machine on a long stretch, but in the dynamics it is not difficult and reasonable to give priority
it is not the task of mathematical justification to invent a grail
--
that's why I have and will always give preference to adjustable semiautomatics
rather than mythical systems - "that work anywhere and anytime" - life is short in fact ... It's a pity to give it up in search of the grail, although it is tempting
And anyway, only wise, timbo and I know how the market works.
And in fact only wise, timbo and I have the longest ring fingers (we learned that from the British)
It helped me to have a finger today. We had a long discussion about this in terms of mathematics.
I think you missed the point.
Your test only showed that random can give a result... no more than that... I don't think it proved anything else.
You "don't think" is wrong. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Проверка_статистических_гипотез
Man, I can't find the words. How narrow-minded you have to be. Look at the daily chart, maybe you will see a channel built on the three extrema that the price was moving in. Everything is much simpler than you imagined.
P.S. For those who cannot see the channel: points - min(04.03.2009) - max(19.03.2009) - min(22.04.2009). The first target was the middle of the channel, reached (08/05/2009), after breaking through the middle of the channel (20/05/2009), the next 3/4 target was reached (22/05/2009), maximum was reached (02/06/2009), which is not a 100% fulfillment. But since the upper shadow is short in the candle, there is a possibility of a short-term return to the channel high around 1.4400, but it is small.
Man, I can't find the words... How narrow-minded you have to be. Look at the daily chart, you might see a channel built on three extrema that the price moved in. Everything is much simpler than you imagined.
P.S. For those who cannot see the channel: points - min(04.03.2009) - max(19.03.2009) - min(22.04.2009). The first target was the middle of the channel, reached (08/05/2009), after breaking through the middle of the channel (20/05/2009), the next 3/4 target was reached (22/05/2009), the maximum was reached (02/06/2009), which is not 100% fulfillment. But since the upper shadow is short in the candlestick, there is a possibility of a short-term return to the channel high around 1.4400, but it is small.
I thought I was the only one here who was blind.
Sell is standing there.
Otherwise, I agree.