Classical thechanalysis doesn't work any more. What works, maybe quantum? - page 14
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
Where are the signals coming from, is it from space? Don't you understand? What data are you using? What kind of market, after all?
You can't call him a practitioner either. You'd better make a research about the practice of his theory and how much better it is than throwing darts.
Can I not check the multiplication table?
There are innumerable studies like this already. Answer: yes, theory works better than random guessing.
Expanded answer: theory fails to explain some of the phenomena that occur in practice, indicating that the proposed theory is imperfect. The work is ongoing, with people digging deep and sideways. No one is claiming that the theory is completely wrong.
By the way, I've wanted to ask for a long time, but was too shy to ask: what are the classical TA methods? And if they are so classical, surely they can be tested with statistical methods.
And really - what are they?
"not a proper translation" - "not" is capitalised.
Well, let it be "not" confused - I usually quote a Buddhist proverb for that, "when the finger is pointed at the moon, the fool is looking at the finger". Rude of course, but what you've done is unacceptable.
By the way, I've wanted to ask for a long time, but was too shy to ask: what are the classical TA methods? And if they are so classical, surely they can be tested with statistical methods.
You start checking them first, don't make guesses.
What are you shouting and spitting on the monitor.
Don't try to project your thoughts onto me. Nobody's yelling at you. Much less drooling.
For the inquisitive mind, I've already said more than I need to about quantum analysis (as I understand and implement it). I will not feed you from a spoon. If it is interesting - go through it. If you have any questions on the matter (when you use quantum analysis) I will be glad to answer them.
But I'm not an inquisitive mind, I want to know a simple thing - what kind of market is it, and what kind of data is it? You are hovering in high matter, you are talking about quanta. Answer the simple things. I do not need to ask you about quanta.
Just tell me what market and what data was used.
Can I not check the multiplication table?
Yes, the multiplication table can be left unchecked. Everything else, especially statements on forums, must be checked.
Expanded answer: theory fails to explain some of the phenomena that occur in practice, indicating that the proposed theory is imperfect. The work goes on, people dig deep and sideways. No one is claiming that the theory is completely wrong.
Quite right, the theory is not absolutely correct. But it is not better than random guessing.
>> which ones, really?
And this is being asked by you who titled the topic as "Classic Tehanalysis...." ?!
I wouldn't mind at all if you drop into this thread (there's much less flooding than here) and help to create a more accurate picture of the Core i7, especially its extreme representative. Just one test.
You can get confused in the branch (it's big), but I can give you exact instructions in private on what to do.
What I'm not happy with in quantum analysis is the analysis time itself. Surely something faster could be created. But what is it?
You could at least give me a hint what methods of analysis you use to get hold of the subject. Here you wrote:
It makes more sense to me - quantum analysis. To divide the whole market into N quanta, to investigate each of them separately, and then to integrate them. And no matter how sharply the market twitches it can be tamed.
What are the quanta, how to integrate? Maybe there are references somewhere?
By the way, I prefer the non-syndicator analysis methods myself.
Well, let it be "not" confused - I usually quote a Buddhist proverb to that, "when the finger is pointed at the moon, the fool is looking at the finger". Rude, of course, but what you've done is unacceptable.
Popular wisdom: "look for fools in the mirror", like you started it.
Quite right, the theory is not absolutely correct. But it is no better than a random guess.
That line contains a logical contradiction. If the theory is no better than random guessing, then it is absolutely NOT correct. If you can prove that it's not better than guessing, I can't promise you a Nobel Prize, but world renown is guaranteed.
Just tell me which market and what data was used.
======
And this is asked by you who titled the topic as "Classic tehanalysis...." ?!