"The 'perfect' trading system - page 49
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
Don't confuse force majeure with statistics. Stops for adequate traders are intended to protect the deposit from force majeure.
That's exactly what I meant to say. There was just a misunderstanding.
I.e. if trades closed on a stop, it means there was a force majeure.
Analogies for blondes don't work.
Here's another 'analogy for blondes'.
Caterpillar mover.
1. The track is its own function. The wheels drive on their own track made up of track tracks.
2. The terrain is a function of the market that synchronises the shape of the track with its own shape.
And no 'laws of mechanics' or other science fiction:
1. The shape of the track tracks can be anything
2. Synchronisation processes can be different.
And in general, I'm getting tired of Victor proving the commonplace truth, such as that investors want to make a profit.
This thread is called "Ideal Trading System", so maybe we should stick to the title and not discuss Victor's system, which is not (ideal)?
I hope the author of this thread was interested in the characteristics of an "ideal" system, and the profitability of this system is an important factor a priori!
Let's get away from the "stability is everything, profit is nothing" options, as it makes no economic sense.
We've had enough of the pointless arguments
Okay. Let's return to the hackneyed analogy of the drunk in the subway. It's all subject to Newtonian mechanics altogether. And the inertia analogy is more than appropriate because it captures the essence of your, um... discovery. The more so, that you have brought this analogy yourself.
So what are you arguing against?
Where in my analogy is any of the laws of mechanics? :)
My examples use images from the real world (where to get others? :) ), in which the laws of mechanics work.
But it in no way implies that the laws of mechanics apply in the world of finnets.
Where in my analogies is any of the laws of mechanics? :)
That's it. Keep reading yourself:
My examples use images from the real world (where would you get others? :) ), in which the laws of mechanics apply.
Right. That's what I'm saying.
But it in no way follows that the laws of mechanics are valid in the world of financial markets.
Mm-hmm. But if you follow your logic, there are drunks. Do you know the word analogy? Naturally, there are no material bodies obeying their own laws in the financial market. No one is arguing that. It's just that there is a definition and concept of inertia, which I didn't invent. Precisely the analogy with physics is what they mean when they talk about inertia of thought - thinking in one direction (can you also say that it does not exist?)), when they talk about the behavior of prices in trends, etc. These are all analogies. When price moves like a bat, it doesn't mean the trader has to be a zoologist.
===The profit of your method is based on the assumption that after receiving momentum from collision with a moose the price will move some time inertially, i.e. without collision with another moose.
Once again - I didn't come up with the definition of inertia.)))
===
Don't like admitting you were wrong?))) You can tell by all the correspondence. It will pass with age. Or maybe it won't. The harder it will be for you.
That's it. Read yourself on:
Right. That's what I'm saying.
Uh-huh. But, if you follow your logic, there are drunks. Do you know the word analogy? Naturally, there are no material bodies obeying their own laws in the financial market. No one is arguing that. It's just that there is a definition and concept of inertia, which I didn't invent. Precisely the analogy with physics is what they mean when they talk about inertia of thought - thinking in one direction (can you also say that it does not exist?)), when they talk about the behavior of prices in trends, etc. These are all analogies. When price moves like a bat, it doesn't mean the trader has to be a zoologist.
===The essence of the profit of your method is based on the assumption that after receiving momentum from a collision with a loser, price will move for some time inertially, i.e. without colliding with a new loser.
Once again - I didn't come up with the definition of inertia.)))
===
Don't like admitting you were wrong?))) You can tell by all the correspondence. It will pass with age. Or maybe it won't. The harder it will be for you.
"price will move some time inertially" is your assumption, not mine.
The form of the intrinsic function can be anything, i.e. the price can move any way it wants after the moose, either in a straight line or in a curve.
You have a wonderful style of communication - you make up fantasies and attribute them all to me - of course I am always wrong, in your interpretation :)
From models used in analogies, you should take only suitable parts, not the whole. All these impulses, inertia and other mechanics as applied to financial markets are typical pseudoscience or more precisely illusions: Visual Illusions and Phenomena
You're boring me.
You cannot say "inertia of thought" because that is pseudoscientific - thoughts are not physical bodies. One cannot even think of Newton's 2nd law as applied to the realm of human relations - "As it is akonked, so it is akonked". Etc.
What are you trying to prove to me? That you don't know what you mean? I do not.
In fact, you've got it all figured out perfectly. Or then I'd have to assume you're insane.
Once again - don't like the expression "price inertia" - ok - trend. Don't like the phrase "inertia of thought" - ok - sluggishness. I do not like analogies where "inertia" occurs - ok - I will not.
Are we done? Are we done here?
Arguing with you still...
You're boring me.
You cannot say "inertia of thought" because that is pseudoscientific - thoughts are not physical bodies. One cannot even think of Newton's 2nd law as applied to the realm of human relations - "As it is akonked, so it is akonked". Etc.
What are you trying to prove to me? That you don't understand what you mean? I don't.
In reality, you've got it all figured out perfectly. Or then I'd have to assume you're insane.
Once again - don't like the expression "inertial price movement" - ok - trend. Don't like the phrase "inertia of thought" - ok - sluggishness. I do not like analogies where "inertia" occurs - ok - I will not.
Are we done? Are we done here?
I will not argue with you...
I'm not arguing with you.
You said, "like muvigny, relies on inertia."
I said you're wrong and you start proving you're right and I'm wrong.
Svinozavr писал(а) >>
/*
I could have published much more but I don't think it's correct to exploit one idea in various variations. I am simply not interested in it. And I don't belong to those who share how he managed to overlay MACD on RSI and still paint everything as a billboard. Another level.
*/
You have me confused with someone else. Maybe you're confusing me with yourself. So here's another revelation for you: people, they come in all shapes and sizes.
Apparently, it's a bump in the road for me. By the way, I couldn't find the original text.
_____________
Mr. VictorArt, it's not your place to judge my level. I have enough serious and huge projects at my main job, here I have more entertainment, which by the way brings profit.
As for the indicators - what's wrong with specialization? It's better than messing with people's heads.
But I can proudly say that I hardly ever cheated anyone with money.
_____________
A different level? Well, well, at least my EAs have stops and no martin.
_____________
On the advisor. It's amazing how many brains can be inserted into 8Kb of "adaptive" source code.
Don't tell me it's just a simple example. Example of what? The use of CA? So there is no adaptivity. There's no such thing as CM.
Adaptivity implies auto-tuning of the adaptive parameter. There is nothing like that in the code.
And do not try to escape, like I do not understand it. Don't worry, I have enough skill to figure out two hundred lines of simple code.
_____________
In general and in general, KG\AM, at least start a new thread for your own talk, so as not to litter another's thread.
I'm not arguing with you.
You said, "like muvigni, relies on inertia."
I said you were wrong and you started proving you right and me wrong.
Don't twist your words - you denied the existence of inertia by arguing that there are no physical bodies in the market and therefore no inertia. Very convincing.))) And I was talking about TS, which assume continuation of the trend, which by definition is inertia. Including yours.
Yeah, and there are no trends in the market - they are trends, they are inertial movements (look in the dictionary - what is inertia). And volatility is also an elusive (inertial) entity. Was on mngnveen - it is not. It is unfixable. Buddy, everything in the world moves from momentum to momentum in a state of inertia. Including you and me, thoughts and price. (Just don't mention quantum physics here, okay? ))))
You yourself cited an inertia model with an alcoholic, and then you yourself deny the possibility of an analogy.
===
Tired of your impenetrable stubbornness. I'm closing the thread and, perhaps, the conversation - I don't see the point. I am not your teacher, and you are not my student, thank God - I would have you nailed.
Good luck - you will need it with your inert (sluggish) thinking. In homeric numbers.
That's it, and fuck off.