Scold :) Interested to hear your opinion regarding... - page 21
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
I'm appealing to everyone:) Be more tolerant of each other.
And if there's a difference of opinion, then the question is:
what is easier, or maybe - with a higher probability, in your opinion - to predict / predetermine / calculate / ask a fortune-teller, your neighbour / variants - the direction of price movement or the movement itself?
the probability of predicting both is the same
the probability to predict the continuation of movement is higher than the probability to predict the price at a given moment of time
with the increase of prediction distance the probability decreases
a robust strategy has an ending probability
monitoring of a strategy's probability allows (to escape in time) to search for another one
probability of a system below 60 is interesting only theoretically (one cannot escape in time)
So that's it... Now I see why only 5% of traders are profitable.
I ' M PROUD TO SAY I'M NOT IN THE BLACK!
It's not really about who's in the black and who's in the black....))))))))))))))))
the probability of predicting a movement is higher than the probability of predicting the price at a particular point in time
as the forecast distance increases, the probability of predicting a price correctly decreases
probability of a system below 60 is only theoretically interesting (you may not have time to escape)
Of course I agree.......
I give an exclusive prognosis
Shelf life - 10,000 bars in advance
Quality - High
Probability - 100%.
With the current level of your rudeness, arrogance and lack of respect for others to work in the team you can not find
a "work from home" job as a programmer similarly
believe in your "life with forex" is impossible
You don't have to put your foot down.
Are you seriously suggesting that I'm busy looking for work?! No my friend, I don't need a job... :)) Let me try it this way - I don't need a job! :) Not on the team. Not outside of it. It's up to you whether you believe in something or not... It's voluntary. Faith is the last to die, as you know...
Here .... Yeah, well, I can also make predictions for you - based on what you've written here and I've managed to look up.... here on this forum... You are so far from making any money from Forex that you can't even imagine... You have a long way to go... Well it's quite possible that it will never happen to you at all... I don't know.
As for my high - well, it's a matter of opinion.... I'll be honest - 90% of the regulars here, such DILIETANTS, that even look, so not immediately find ... Well, I'm used to judging people by their level of professionalism. Moreover, note that it's not so much about what I think someone or not a pro, but I just think you either behave modestly, or be an expert with a capital letter ... There are so many belligerent ignoramuses here that it's hard to resist...
I haven't seen many experienced people here, but there are some... And what they say is very right, not everyone understands... But there is, there is a very clear understanding...
Well, here's my friend, believe me, I'm not looking for work... But if anyone :))) suddenly wants to hire me for $3000 a month for a couple of months.... Like I said in the ad, you're welcome... But something tells me it doesn't even count as a joke... There are no people here who make enough money to afford the luxury of hiring someone... No, see, they're all theorists and hired musclemen... You don't get it... If a man makes, in forex, it's not 200 quid... it's an average of 10 to 15... 5 at first... thousand quid a month clean. And there's no such thing here. I'm telling you 100%...
So you're gonna have to come down to earth...
And by the way! You'll notice I NEVER start it... I get poked, but I always just react.... You, on the other hand, are just being facetious... Whatever... I'm not offended.... :))
In general the answer is prosaic - to use statanalysis. For this you have to learn the rules and use them as they are intended. It is very important to be consistent and logical, otherwise all sorts of tricks and errors can add up to anything. In each particular TS, you can make a wrong logical assumption, or process data that is not relevant to the subject of the study, or you can do anything wrong.
But I sense you're asking about something else, something specific?
Thank you, of course, for the profound moralizing. I will use them for sure.
I was asking a very specific thing: how to determine whether TC gives a statistical advantage and, in particular, how you do it. I do not think it is possible to be more specific.
Let's give a simple example. Weekly chart of the pound. We buy at the opening and wait for the profit of 5 points. How would you determine whether there is a statistical advantage in this idea?
I get 1537 positive outcomes on 1591 bars, i.e. a profit of 7685 pips. Spread of 3 pips was taken for the whole period, which should give a bias towards a nicer picture.
From this example I understood that you are talking about elementary testing of TS on available historical data. This option is known to everyone and everyone uses it. Everyone uses it, including grail-writers who obtain significant "statistical advantages" of their systems, especially after optimization.
Perhaps I do not need to tell you that the market is changing, and the fact that TS is earning today does not mean that it will continue doing so tomorrow. How to assess the validity of the statistical advantage you found in this sense? I don't mean this idea of yours, it's not a strategy after all, it's just an illustration. I mean the fundamental point that concerns all expert writers. Can you say something concrete about it.
What about sufficiency of statistical data to get reliable results? Is 1581 bar sufficient ? Is 30 years enough ?
The presence of statistical advantage is central to any TS. And I asked you my question because I don't know any other approaches besides basic history checking. I thought that since the man is so confident about it, perhaps he can suggest something more substantial.
No, it's not your truth.
The mathematical theorem states that you cannot build a winning strategy when the outcome of a trade is 50/50. You are simply arguing the contrary. Like you can make an MM which will produce trades with 50/50 outcome, but with profits and losses coming in a regular order. And, of course, it is not difficult to exploit this pattern. Only a person who has a very hard time with one-way logical conclusions can believe it. Of course, you can believe what you want, but the mathematical theorem does not care whether your system is theoretical or not, it does not care how many times and how you'll play with the results of transactions, because no sophistical tricks will not make it change its conclusion - you cannot build a winning strategy on a 50/50 split.
You gave an example of a common fallacy that turns a blind eye to the nature of the pattern in the PPPUUPPPUU sequence... Where do the legs of this pattern, on which it is so easy to build a winning strategy, grow from? From a 50/50 imbalance, but not from the magical properties of MM. First there must be a statistical advantage in the initial series, only then will a pattern appear in the sequence of trade results, otherwise we contradict the matteorem.
You are interesting :) . You are also referring to the matheorem. You should have learned to read more carefully. You are given the example of PPP UUU UUU... the number of outcomes is 50/50. The system is profitable and it is impossible not to see that. As you said one-way logical conclusions :-) class. If you can't see it then that's probably it - no logic at all.
Once again, be precise in your wording since you are referring to mate statistics.
These are completely different things. For the first example is given (the Grail in its purest form is given, and do not need 57 or 98% of positive outcomes), but the second is not satisfied with 50/50 probability of transaction, because with this TS, the probability of "guessing" is 100%.
Nothing prevents, knowing that the next 3 trades should be unprofitable, to go the other way. I.e. we will have TS with all 100% profitable trades.
Z.U. Don't think you're smarter than everyone else. I do not remember how it sounds in Latin, but in translation. It's human nature to make mistakes.
.... And I asked you my question because, apart from a basic history check, I don't know any other approaches. I thought that since the man is so confident about it, perhaps he can suggest something more substantial.
I will try to help, although the question is not addressed to me. It is possible to check not on history, but on synthetic models. I.e. on the generated series that has the same statistical characteristics as the quotes flow, what the matematic tries to do.
2 Prival: Seryoga, PPP UUUU PPP UUU is not a Bernoulli scheme (again, I have rolled back the ideas of my article).
Non-Bernoulli systems definitely exist - e.g. Lucky with the number of simultaneously open positions greater than 1. But you can't take advantage of that. And it is extremely difficult to attach something to Bernoulli's systems to make them robustly profitable.
The question should be posed on a different plane: how to turn a Bernoulli system into a non-Bernoulli one, i.e. to turn trades into dependent ones, and in such a way that it can be used?
For example, here's an example: we have two strictly Bernoullian systems X and Y. Is it possible to learn how to combine them somehow (Z = X*Y) so that the result of their combination becomes a non-Bernoullian system? The question is not stupid at all, some unexpected solutions are possible.
Pardon me, but even now I vaguely understand what the bad signal is. No irony, I'm trying to keep it simple. It's honed in so that it doesn't close earlier. Sounds good to me, not bad. I suppose you can't figure it out without the details.
Here's wondering, what is the ostensible reason for you to rely on your system? Do you have statistics on the "quality" of your signals? Or just optimization results?
I got into this thread to support the idea that adapting any system with fixed SL/TP is a simple but often wrong approach. OK, you can fix SL, and that's probably correct, but it's harder with TP, especially if the system is heavily trending. I also don't like optimizing by TP. It often turns out to be a fit. On the other hand having a "bad" signal, say, not the best one, and working towards maximizing the profit and reducing drawdowns (through the logic and filters on the close), you can get many times more than just finding a pattern and using this pattern in determining the TP. I say "bad" signal because I know where to improve it, and how, but I don't do it until I'm done with the outputs. The outputs are the main thing, and the hardest part. It is easy enough to get a good signal, but what to do with it is a mystery to many people. It has nothing to do with statistics.
It's just that having outputs where you need them makes it easier to know how best to enter, so for me it's secondary. That's it, in a nutshell.