To follow up - page 7
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
Enlighten me, what is it about Lopital that makes everyone so concerned? I used to know him as a perfectly decent citizen.
Also.
There seems to be a consensus about the context. :-)
Still, it's a qualitative concept. MTS, on the other hand, needs quantitative assessments to make decisions (as a rule).
What are your thoughts about the parameterization of the market condition? I mean a set of parameters that have two characteristics - adequacy and meaningfulness. From this point of view MACD parameters, for example, are not meaningful.
At the moment of switching of the zig-zag we have non-zero MO - the price will move in this direction on the average exactly (or nearly exactly) as it has already moved. But, alas, it is impossible to earn on it. According to Pastukhov.
Agree - a paradox!
However, like any paradox, it is imaginary. The point is that the price movement in the opposite direction ("wrong" direction) is not "taken into account", because it is a new segment of WP. So it turns out that only the "necessary" moves are visible. If we type in the statistics of price movement immediately after the switch point taking into account the direction, we will get zero on the martingale - the price will go up as well as down with equal probability, and the paradox will disappear!
Once again. The essence of the paradox comes down to the fact that the average shoulder length ZZ is 2H, and the distance to the reversal point is 1H. 2H-1H=H is the net profit at each step of the split. The clue is that 1H, is the average value of the expected movement in the "right" direction and completely overlooked is the same value of the average movement in the opposite direction.
P.S. Hello everyone.
What are your thoughts on the parameterisation of market conditions? I mean a set of parameters that has two characteristics - sufficiency and meaningfulness. From this point of view MACD parameters, for example, are not meaningful.
Meaningless parameterization should be avoided, of course. Signals associated with rigidly fixed muve periods (say, 8 and 13) are, of course, absurd. How can one escape from such fixation if one wants to use MACD anyway?
I have developed a certain common metasystem. When using MACD, one should check signals not only at 8 and 13, but also at all possible ratios of periods (within reasonable limits). At the same time, look for criteria to select the appropriate one for the given situation. As a result, it may happen that, say, an hour ago a good signal will be at muva 7 and 11, but in a couple of hours "correct" periods will be 12 and 17.
The advantage of this procedure of "parameter convolution" is that we both avoid fixation and simultaneously use the necessary analytical tools.
To follow up on the TA.
As I'm currently in a broken-down state and not ready for something serious, but I need to start with something, I suggest that we agree on the terms. As the practice of discussions shows, most of the arguments that turn into hit-and-runs and insults have to do with terminological confusion. And since this thread is mostly about TA, it's...
Who understands what TA is?
It's a mess. Who thinks that TA is only the kind of analysis of CR that was before *** year, but after that it's no longer TA. // on history.
Or concentrates on methods of analysis. Like Dow's wave theory etc. - is TA, and, say, statistical research is not. (Then the question arises at once: where to put the MA? In TA or in statistical analysis? And the standard deviation?) Some under TA methods understand only "figures". And so on. // by methods
There is also a common definition of TA where the emphasis is on the purpose of CD analysis, which for some reason is exclusively price prediction. //on targets
As you see the field of banana tossing is vast. As for me TA is analysis of Price Gap by any methods and with any aims (like to know the sex of future child).
I.e. I define TA by the subject of analysis - by CD. To be more exact, the subject of analysis is the content of the quotation stream, where in addition to the price it may have volume, Open Interest, glass tiers.
===
I'm not writing this to convince anyone of anything, but just to be clear about my interpretation of the term. So, when I say TA, I mean analysis of quote stream content. How - whatever.
OK, a quote from Pastukhov:
About the fact that we are always forecasting the price anyway, I hope there is no misunderstanding. Even if someone says they are not forecasting, but merely following the market, they are still making a forecast of price behaviour one way or another. Any position is always opened relying on the fact that the price will go where it is supposed to go, i.e. it is forecasted.
Second. The proper analysis must be statistical - to be linked with the real market.
Otherwise, everything seems logical.
OK, a quote from Pastukhov:
About the fact that we always forecast the price anyway, I hope there is no misunderstanding. Even if someone says they are not forecasting, but merely following the market, they are still making a forecast of price behaviour one way or another.
That "somebody" is me. >>)))
Any position is always opened relying on the fact that the price will go where it is supposed to go, i.e. it is forecasted.
Yes, of course. Only this is secondary. The predictive properties of TA can only be used within the context, which is determined by the analysis. (Within a trend you can play on corrections as well as on the trend.) Determination of entry/exit points within the context - yes, TA as a predictor copes with this. But no more than that. So (for me!!!) the main purpose of TA is to evaluate the context, not to determine where and when the price will be. And it's not a play on words.
Second. A proper analysis must be statistical - to be linked with the real market.
Other than that, everything seems to make sense.
I didn't say "correct" or "not" at all. Is that what you want to talk about?)))
As it is, I agree. In general, any method that uses backstory can be called statistical. It's another matter what "parrots" to count.
Любая позиция всегда открывается с расчетом на то, что цена пойдет куда надо, т.е. предполагает прогноз.
Although... Strictly speaking, the "context" itself is a forecast. OK, but how to separate context analysis and trading within it? We have to agree on terms again...))
That "somebody" is me.))
I knew you would respond. Actually, I was referring to you :)
Yes, of course. Only this is secondary. The predictive properties of TA can only be used within the context, which is determined by the analysis. (Within a trend you can play on corrections as well as on the trend.) Determination of entry/exit points within the context - yes, TA as a predictor copes with this. But no more than that. So (for me!!!) the main purpose of TA is to evaluate the context, not to determine where and when the price will be.
If I knew what context is in your interpretation, I'd be more confident. To me context means "in an hour with a high probability above the current one", "in an hour with a high probability below the current one", "fuck knows".
I didn't talk about "rightness" or "not" at all. Is that what you want to talk about?))
No, no, God forbid the religious wars. Honestly, I don't give a shit what TA is, as long as there is a result.