Price movements can be predicted ! - page 18
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
Well, that's the grading system. It's not that simple, of course, as SL (security!) gets in the way and breaks the perfect evaluation picture.
A prediction is considered successful if the close occurred in the direction indicated by the diviner - even if the difference is only 10 pips. The movement against the direction of the trade opening can be anything up to SL.
The trade is unsuccessful in all other cases - if a stop loss is triggered or if the closing is not in the specified direction.
i suggest the following estimation system, i've been using, it may be a bicycle, but i use it for entry/exit estimation, i'm not a mathematician myself, i don't know berlucchi or berlioz, so if i'm wrong, just point it out
for positive trades i look at two ratios
Max Drawdown / Max Potential Profit should be less than 1
(TimeWhenLastDayTransactionOverPlus - TimeIn) / (TimeOut - TimeWhenLastTransactionOverPlus) must be less than 1
if each of these ratios is less than 1, the trade is considered successful, because in terms of time of existence it was more in the plus and the amplitude is also shifted to the plus
Quite attractive, but too rigid and rather heuristic criteria, blend.
1st criterion: all systems with TP/SL < 1 may be scrapped on this basis. But there may well be profitable systems among them (though I do not like this ratio, but Sergey may well like it).
The 2nd criterion: it rather refers to the ratio of time of being in profit and loss than to the trade results. Due to the explosive nature of the market, the criterion also does not seem particularly weighted. A deal may be in the red 85% of the time (flat), but for the remaining 15% of the time it may be in the red (trend).
I'm not trying to impose any imperatives that I personally may find pleasing, but don't seem unconditional to others. Right now I'm only interested in the "pure" TC result, not diluted with any attractive requirements. The final, final requirements are not too small and positive m.o.a. of the trade, and not too large a drawdown (my balls are not yet cast-iron :) ).
Нет, проверяем не просто EWP, а именно EWP в интерпретации Сергея. Все автоматы работают из рук вон плохо, если сам как следует не подкован в EWP.
Alexei, I think, for the sake of objectivity, it should be done like this.
Observing the market:
1. I see the third wave of the most senior cycle - cycle1 - beginning to form.
2. I see the third wave, directly nested in the cycle1, cycle2, has started to form.
3. I see the third wave, directly attached to the cycle 2, of cycle 3, begins to form.
I wait a bit to make sure that wave 2 of Cycle 3 has indeed completed.
When, in my opinion, Cycle3 wave 3 has really started to form,
I give a forecast:
- tool,
- trade direction,
- profit target = minimum target of wave 3 of cycle 3
- target for the loss = level close to the start of wave 1 of cycle3.
It turns out we are taking a loss when the Cycle 3 wave 3 diagnosis was wrong.
That is all, no changes are allowed before closing the position on profit/loss.
Of course, I trade more risky, however, the scheme I have given will reflect exactly the main principle itself.
OK, Sergey, make predictions, in which you consider yourself confident. I repeat: I will only take directions from them.
Fundamentally wrong. And I disagree.
1. We are evaluating the quality of the forecast, not the quality of the trading system. So Star does the right thing. Specifies the point from which to dance (the moment the forecast is issued) the target and the time.
On Thursday at 23.59 the deal is closed (forcibly) if it has not reached the target, otherwise you can always say it will be a month or a year later.
2. At the end of the week we estimate the drawdown size in addition to reaching the target, for example, the target is 100 points, and the drawdown is 200. Stop loss should not be used, as it is a safety cushion for TC and it will confuse everything.
3. Just a direction up or down is not a prediction. Mathematician, try to challenge my forecast EUR/USD this week will move both up and down :-) It's 100% ironclad. I will bet with timbo on his terms, I can show these plots at the end of the week :-)
Therefore, such an arrangement will be correct, logical and allow to estimate
1. NZDUSD confidently wants to go down. By Friday the target of 0.4900 will be reached. The price is now at 0.5380.
2. the USDJPY confidently wants to go down. By Friday the target 92.00 will be reached. The price is now at 96.00.
In addition to the fact that the target has been reached (or not), the analysis should specify the drawdown size in points.
1st criterion: all systems with TP/SL < 1 may be scrapped. But there may be profitable ones among them (though I myself do not like this ratio, but Sergey may like it).
Criterion 2: it is more about the ratio of the time a trade is in plus to minus, rather than the result of the trade. Due to the explosive nature of the market, the criterion does not seem to be particularly weighted either. The deal may be in the black 85% of the time (flat), but for the remaining 15% of time it can fly to an even bigger profit (there was a trend).
I was just suggesting, based on what you wanted to assess the direction
1. if the price went down in a 100 pips loss, and then went up in 110 pips and closed on the plus side, was the direction predicted?
2. The point is not quite correct, since a flat may turn out to be a sideways wave, and therefore we should look at the angle of the corridor, but if it is a flat, and then the price went down due to the news, took a takeoff, and returned 5 minutes later, then again, is the direction correctly predicted?
I'm trying to get rid of random predictions and I realise it's not that simple, the direction should be the direction
OK, let's observe then. A couple of predictions are already in place. I will try to give out my analysis when the statistics come in. Sergey(Prival), you will give yours. I'm not claiming that I have a completely true analysis.
I just want to note that no brilliant Elliottian can too often give forecasts that are executed without any correction in the process of position holding. An accurate initial prediction is not the purpose of the Wave-Principle, for it is impossible. All Wave Principle forecasts are scenarios where both targets, volumes and numbers of positions are constantly changing. What ultimately matters is not the figure a trader sets as a target in his forecast, but the profit figure, at which he will close, even if it differs greatly from the initial forecast.
What is important to me in my analysis is to see that Sart actually opens the positions he announces. It is important for you to follow the targets and their achievement. At the end of the experiment we will see together what has been achieved.
P.S. blend, I saw your post only after writing mine. Your opinion will be interesting to hear too. I do not think that 100 loss and then 110 gain during position holding is a guessed direction. It's either not a very accurate entry or not a very accurate exit.
Once again: what are we analysing - Sart's visionary capabilities or his ability to trade profitably based on EWP?
OK, let's observe then. A couple of predictions are already in place. I will try to give out my analysis when the statistics come in. Sergey(Prival), you will give yours. I'm not claiming that I have a completely true analysis.
I just want to note that no brilliant Elliottian can too often give forecasts that are executed without any correction in the process of position holding. An accurate initial prediction is not the purpose of the Wave-Principle, for it is impossible. All Wave Principle forecasts are scenarios where both targets, volumes and numbers of positions are constantly changing. What ultimately matters is not the figure a trader sets as a target in his forecast, but the profit figure, at which he will close, even if it differs greatly from the initial forecast.
What is important to me in my analysis is to see that Sart actually opens the positions he announces. It is important for you to follow the targets and their achievement. At the end of the experiment we will see together what has been achieved.
P.S. blend, I saw your post only after writing mine. Your opinion will be interesting to hear too. I do not think that 100 loss and then 110 gain during position holding is a guessed direction. It's either not a very accurate entry or not a very accurate exit.
Once again: what are we analyzing - Sart's visionary capabilities or his ability to profitably trade based on EWP?
It's all relative to the trading system. But not to the forecast. If the forecast is accurate enough, we can build any kind of TS we want. Flies separate, cutlets separate.
As for my forecasts, there's no point in posting them, so far I seem to make forecasts of about 5 min with accuracy to a point (and it looks like this 'Statistics as a way of looking into the future!'). That's why I don't believe in such 100 point forecasts, and I see that you're a sceptic of this method too.
I'm curious, this thread is much better and more interesting than many.
we are analysing - Sart's visionary capabilities, as there are some phrases that indicate it is not pure EWP. For example waiting for the market to "heat up" and waiting for Monday's opening, but it's not mentioned anywhere... but it's what he has ))
It's all about the trading system. But not the forecast. If the forecast is accurate enough, you can build any kind of TS you want. The flies are separate, the cutlets are separate.
Finally, here are the golden words that I was never able to formulate, but the man finally did))
TS is a survival system, and a high-quality forecast makes a comfortable survival system
you may build TS without forecasts, for example random, and it is very difficult to distinguish a random system from a poor-quality forecast. If TS itself is of high quality, it eliminates consequences of a bad forecast
that's why the spears are breaking and the audience is indignant, probably intuitively, or someone consciously feels the substitution of notions
the branch is called "price movement can be predicted", so let's evaluate not the ability of the system to trade profitably but the ability to make predictions.
>> although i myself don't have much time to follow and evaluate other people's predictions strictly according to the system, so i just grouse, but it's up to everyone to decide how he'll evaluate
I realised I was wrong. OK, visionary powers. Not a word about TC, observing.