_Market description - page 10
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
Yeah, that's what I thought. Only it's no longer importance, but rather a kind of sensitivity or something like that. I had similar thoughts too, but not about the input or output, but about the signal in general.
And you want to say, that irrespective of system, TF and pair, the sensitivity of output signal in any system is always 1.66 times higher?
I don't know for sure... but it seems to me that yes... To any, pair... TF. I don't know anything except minutes... :)
Sensitivity, um... It's something about amps... And importance, that's for sure - important, to be wrong about important is more to lose than to be wrong about unimportant... :)
Well then don't wiggle and give a clear criterion. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about.
Uhh!!! I'm not wagging... I mean the word... :) What do you mean?
The importance of the closing signal ( it's later :)) ) is higher by a factor of approximately 1.660... Or 0.600 ( 1/1.660 ) ...
The aim should be to become an expert, not to make money. If there is such a goal, money will come by itself, as in any business.
golden words... I'm willing to subscribe to that... like a lot of what's in that book... but you don't become an expert by reading it...
Uhh!!! I'm not wagging... I mean the word... :) What do you mean?
The importance of the closing signal ( it's later :)) ) is higher by a factor of approximately 1.660... Or 0.600 ( 1/1.660 ) ...
So 1.66 or 0.66? By the way, if you want it to be tip-top and inverted, as you want, in 1.618034 (and 0.618034 = 1/1.618034), i.e. phi.
What do you call it? Let's call it a valence. Give me the definition.
Is it 1.66 or 0.66? By the way, if you want everything to be tip-top and beautiful as you want, then 1.618034 (and 0.618034 = 1/1.618034), i.e. at the time.
What do you call it? Let's call it a wallflower. Give me the definition.
No... I do not want beautiful ... :) I gave you a number, it's been experimentally tested... I can prove that the "experiment" is correct, but I won't... Why I don't want to repeat it... :)
I gave definitions... Further it seems all, wishing to disprove can do it easily... It is so easy to prove the obvious, that the importance of both signals is the same. It does not matter what it is, what matters is that it is the same. That's all. The whole question doesn't even matter. :)
No... I don't want it to be pretty... :) I gave you a number, it's been experimentally tested... I can prove that the "experiment" is correct, but I won't... Why I don't want to repeat it... :)
I gave definitions... Further it seems all, wishing to disprove can do it easily... It is so easy to prove the obvious, that the importance of both signals is the same. It does not matter what it is, what matters is that it is the same. That's all. The whole question doesn't even matter. :)
And who has to prove to whom? Do the forum members have to prove to you that you're talking rubbish or do you have to prove to them that you're not? Imho, the second.
You can prove everything with words, for example that the Earth has the shape of a teapot with a spout inwards. Prove it.
For example, your ratio is unfair for swing strategies. If you're right, prove it -- describe the class of strategies for which it's true.
Who has to prove it to whom? Do the forum members have to prove to you that you are talking rubbish or do you have to prove to them that you are not? Imho, the second one.
You can prove anything with words, for example, that the Earth has the shape of a teapot with the spout inside. Prove it with deeds.
For example, your ratio is unfair for swing strategies. If you are right, prove it -- describe the class of strategies for which it is true.
I'm not asking you to prove the inverse theorem... :) It's kind of weird to even explain it... I'm asking you to prove... that what's obvious to everyone is fucking... Prove that the importance of the signals is the same. And that will automatically prove me wrong.
For anyone. I'm not going to prove it... For it has become almost obvious to me personally... Having said that, I think you are "no". And rightly so... :)
I was just sharing :) An observation, and prefaced all those who wish to prove their beliefs. And you refuse. But you don't want to. I don't really know yet ( !!!) how it can be used in trading... That's what I'm thinking at the moment... It's as clear as day for you, well done... :)
That's a good point... I'm willing to subscribe... as well as much of what's in this book... but you don't become an expert by reading it...
The book is just to show the mechanism of the system, you may not need it any more. Change your outlook on the market, you don't take, you give... that's probably why you're losing so much... the vast majority are just trying to grab.