To follow up - page 9
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
By the way, the balance of logic between the indicators and the Expert Advisor is very relevant to the understanding of TA.
If we proceed from the fact that TA is the analysis and indicators are the tools of analysis, like a ruler or a thermometer, then it is clear that they cannot make decisions by themselves - they just measure. You won't change a thermometer for a trip to the shop to buy new boots and Procruste isn't a maniac because his analytical tool (box) measured that way.
I.e. you can clearly separate TA and TS, analysis and decision making. Hence the division into indicators and expert in MTS looks logical. But in practice ...)) we have what we have. Someone, like Kositsyn, transfers the logic of indices into Expert Advisors. Someone, like your trader, goes to the other extreme - do not touch my analysis with his paws! - All to the turkey.
Yes, Peter, all exactly the same thing I wanted to write to you. Purely ideologically, the turkey indicating and the advisor making the decisions. But I guess in reality it's a matter of faith, and the only real criterion is how quickly the decision is calculated in the current moment.
I myself have a turkey that carries everything, even though it is ideologically wrong. Even now I can test the performance of what should become an EA without an EA and without testing it :)
It is such a strange evolution: I have never used an optimizer as a matter of principle (I try to refuse from any external parameterization). Now I have also refused the tester (it will not work anyway). I put almost all my efforts into debugging the indulators and use what remains for the Expert Advisors.
P.S. By the way, together with the new concept ("belief") of the penta developers, the ideological demarcation line between an inductor and an EA has become quite elusive. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. It's just that particularly principled comrades will have to get used to it.
Yes, Peter, it's exactly the same thing I wanted to write to you. Purely ideologically, the turkey indicates and the councillor makes the decisions. But I guess in reality it's a matter of faith, and the only real criterion is how quickly the decision is calculated in the current moment.
I myself have a turkey that carries everything, even though it is ideologically wrong. I can still test the performance of what should become an EA without an EA and without testing it :)
Uh-huh. Testing past the tester is another "pro" to the indicator bowl. // it seems it's not even a coincidence - we're not the only ones, I see, coming to this...))
But let me elaborate on TA. It seems we finally agreed (hurray!))) that TA is first of all analysis and it's not quite correct to give it other functions, like forecasting. The main function (for me it's the only one... almost))) - is an analysis of the market situation or, to get closer to the essence of my mysterious))) approach, the context. I.e. the difference of two MACDs beyond some value, for example, does not bear a signal for a trading operation but only indicates that the market micro-context is such that we have some movement within the MACD method. There are plenty of recommendations (signals) on how to trade on MACD, but they all go for naught as they are disconnected from the context formed by a number of these micro-context states. All these recommendations remind me of Procruste's sick logic (he's so attached!)) - The attempt to squeeze any situation into one's own, limited by the dimensions of the box of understanding.
On the other hand, the attempt to look at BP "in general", "from Mars" is also doomed to fail - stat. studies of CR with temporal framing (the ones I have encountered and that myself) convince me of this. Oddly enough, here again the analogy to the logic of this swooning pedant applies. It is as if this maniac has made the size of the lodge based on the average height of homo sapiens. Unfortunately it is impossible to do without damaging the trading account.
In principle, there's nothing new in the approach I'm using - the same Kagi, Renko, etc. are from the same line. I just tried to bring it to a more or less full-fledged analysis of the CD formed in this way. An analysis that would allow more reliable practical conclusions to be drawn. How can you be sure that the quality of analysis will be higher than over the timeframe analysis? Well, firstly, because all BP analyses don't lead to anything - it is unlikely to be worse, and secondly, from the most general assumptions about price formation, the nature of price movement. A little more detail. I doubt anyone in their right mind would claim to be able (or looking for a way) to predict a Bernanke grimace, a major fund decision, or finally a terrorist attack, based on a CR analysis. The pharmacy, as A.A. Venediktov says in such cases, is just around the corner. It is quite obvious (now, obviously! judging by this forum, rather the opposite!) that the only chance for a small player to make money is to be able to assess the context created by market makers (here I am not referring to the narrowly technical corridor maintenance function, but literally "market making". And do not look at the majors as the enemy! They are allies. We are the pilot fish with the sharks. And we don't go shopping with a grenade launcher.)) And having defined the context, kindly given to us by the financial aces, we trade according to it. And interestingly, by framing the CD in micro-context, it allows us to use existing TA methods much more accurately - to see the overall context at a stage where the train hasn't left yet. But why the hell should I filter bar after bar on a narrow market that is not suitable for making a reasonable trade? What's in it for me? God knows how long this "narrowness" will last. (Only to spoil the statistics! I will not take your claims - so what, they were raped. It's your own fault.)
I apologize for the confusion - I haven't quite recovered yet. I will try to put it this way:
Subject of analysis. This is CD obtained by combining time-framed bars or ticks into clusters according to some criteria, important for practical trading. For example, by volatility. But not necessarily. Any model that allows making profit. And the real possibility of profit from this cluster is not important at all for the breakdown by microcontext. Just by history - that's the way things are, there was an opportunity to profit here. The real opportunity will come when you analyze a number of these clusters, contex frames... whatever. I don't have an established terminology. Anyway, I get it.
Analysis methods. The methods are all basically the same. ("What's with the rams, did you change the gate? - The gate is old - the rams are new."))
Target. Well, everything is clear here. To mess with everyone's mind here. ))))
===
Okay. It's still "muddle instead of music." I won't rewrite it. And that's it for today.
I reread my last post and something came to mind:
- Explain, mon cher, to your comrades what's going on here.
It's like the old man exploded.
- The ultimate achievement of neutron megaloplasma! - he proclaimed. - The field rotor like a divergence grades itself along the spin and there, inwardly, it turns the matter of the question into electric spirits, from which the synecdoche of the answer arises...
In short, one must draw the rows themselves. Otherwise the ears will grow wool...
Svinozavr писал(а) >>
The main fi (for me so and only... almost))) - is the analysis of a market situation or, to get closer to the essence of my mysterious))) approach, the context. I.e. the difference of two MAs for some value, for example, doesn't bear a signal for a trading operation, but simply indicates that the market micro-context is such that we have some movement within the MACD method...
I think this is a trick.
Identification of market conditions inevitably provokes action or inaction ;), so there is a prediction. Maybe it's not a prediction, but a memory. Which for most people is a prediction.
;)
And predicting Ben's "helicopter man" grimaces really shouldn't, fluctuations don't count.
The context is sort of intuitively-contextualised....
Didn't fully grasp your irony or reasoning about time-frame analysis.
Can you clarify?
Subject of analysis. This is a CR obtained by combining of time-framed bars or ticks into clusters according to some criteria, important for practical trading. For example, by volatility. But not necessarily. Any model that allows making profit. And the real possibility of profit from this cluster is not important at all for the breakdown by microcontext. Just by history - that's the way things are, there was an opportunity to profit here. The real opportunity will come when you analyze a number of these clusters, contex frames... whatever. I don't have an established terminology. In short, I see.
The methods of analysis. The methods are all basically the same. ("What's with the rams, did you change the gate? - The gates are old - the rams are new."))
Well, for example, dealing with zigzags, I finally realised that it's essentially an alternative representation to the accepted bars of historical data. And if you want, it can be rendered in the form of, say... er... Z-bars :) . But then to apply MAPs to them (in the sense of usual TA methods) ... Is that why I left the MAs to meet them here :) . It's a joke of course ... it seems :)
By the way, there have been other attempts at alternative representations - here are the equi-bars come to mind. But zigzags (or the oscillators that spawn them) of course unimaginably expand the number of possible representations. Right up to complete mess :).
Well, let's wait for the sequel, maybe that's not what I meant at all.
Well, for example, studying zigzags, I eventually realised that this is essentially an alternative representation to the accepted bars of historical data. And if you want, it can be rendered in the form of, say... er... Z-bars :) . But then to apply MAPs to them (in the sense of usual TA methods) ... Was it for the purpose of my leaving the MAs in order to meet them here :) . It's a joke of course ... it seems :)
By the way, there have been other attempts at alternative representations - here are the equi-bars come to mind. But zigzags and equivalent oscillators of course broaden unimaginably the number of possible representations. Right up to a complete mess :).
However, let's wait for the sequel, maybe that's not what I mean at all.
Why zigzags etc. oscillators? It's price quantisation/discretisation. Since we have 3 measurements (price, time and volume), there can be three main quantizations - price, time and volume. The rest are their modifications. The most common is by time. Kagi, Renko, ZZ by price. Equivolume by volume. Modifications can of course be different and are reduced to different quantization limits, preserving certain integral characteristics on the readout.
In general any quantization is used to reduce the volume of transmitted and analysed information with minimum loss of important data. Quantization is not obliged to select useful information as it is different for every trading method. In short, my opinion, the main thing in quantization is not to lose the information you need, and the rest is not important, if you can get more detailed information (for example by reducing time frame). All the same the TC makes necessary calculations and selects the necessary information for decision making.
why zig-zag etc. oscillators? It is a price quantisation. Since we have three measurements (price, time and volume), there can be three basic quantisations - price, time and volume. The rest are their modifications.
So we go from one to another - quantizing either the price or the time.
Is it appropriate to recall a stalled conversation here? - But having self-similarity in the context of any Timeframe would be optimistic .
;)
Svinozavr писал(а) >> Существуют куча рекомендаций (т.н. сигналов), как торговать по MACD, но они все ни к черту не годятся, т.к. оторваны от контекста, образованного рядом из этих микроконтекстных состояний.
Yep, ripped off completely. And even that series of micro-contextual states doesn't necessarily constitute the full context for a trading decision.
About a year and a half ago I had some thoughts, I even tried to formulate them into an article. The main question was: What are we doing here, analyzing MACD signals (or something else) or even several indicators? We have calculated the sign of the difference between two bars and we can see that the indicator hints that we could trade up. But we are crafty: we move to a higher TF and do the same. And again we get confirmation of a hint to open up. After that we get a couple more confirmations on the RSI in the same TF, and now we are sure that we can enter. We go in and obtain a loss. But what is the reason? That's what I have tried to find out, but have not got it.
Subject of analysis. This is the CD obtained by combining the time-framed bars or ticks into clusters according to some criteria, meaningful for practical trading. For example, by volatility. But not necessarily. Any model that allows making profit. And the real possibility of profit from this cluster is not important at all for the breakdown by microcontext. Just by history - that's the way things are, there was an opportunity to profit here. The real opportunity will come when you analyze a number of these clusters, contex frames... whatever.
Yes, I've been thinking about that too. And there's something almost ready to be published. But let me see what you've come up with. Maybe I won't have to publish it.
I doubt anyone in their right mind would claim to be able (or looking for a way) to predict a Bernanke grimace, a major fund decision or finally a terrorist attack based on a CD analysis. The pharmacy, as A.A.Venediktov says in such cases, is just around the corner.
Yes, yes, that's right, I go to that very drugstore. I am not cured yet. The doctor keeps writing me prescriptions, but I phylons out and go there occasionally. I meet some of my local colleagues there as well (look at this thread; these hooligans are violating the treatment regime, it's time to put them in an asylum). I even whispered in my ear at one window that you also visited the pharmacy. And they told me this: "What kind of cure did we give him... "Yeah, he got a formal course, like he's healthy, fit for the army, fit for duty. In reality, he's just like you. He's still doing the same things he did before, he just doesn't know it."
All right, jokes aside. I'm not going to guess which way Benya will fart, but I don't have to. Wherever he farted - the market doesn't care about it, and he will do it his way anyway (examples abound: for the terrorist attack of 09/11 Masterforex showed it convincingly). Or, Ben simply has nowhere else to go and is forced to fart where the market makers tell him to fart in his ear. But in almost any case, the market will still use Beni's farting as an excuse to play with liquidity.
And that at some point there is bound to be an event equivalent to a micro-panic in Dubai, the market has long known.
Peter, all your intricate reasoning about contexts, chains of microcontexts, clustering by criteria still ultimately boils down to one short phrase: "you can go in there" or "sit on the fence". By doing so, you make a short-term prediction, to put it another way: "the current situation is such that statistically this context has a continuation".
But the main point is that for a purely martingale process and given the information about it alone, this reasoning makes no sense, because there is no continuation of the context for it. At any given moment it can suddenly cut off and change to the opposite or neutral. But the reality is different: for you, given your practical experience, the context does continue more often than it breaks off, i.e. the process is not martingale. Consequently, it has a memory. And memory in turn implies that at least sometimes the process has information about what it will do next in the short term.
I continue to believe that any trader who systematically beats the market over a long period of time - whether he knows it or not - still makes predictions and actually takes advantage of the non-martingale nature of the market. (I would like to point out, for the natives of Neobit Island, that Pastukhov also assumes that the market is a non-martingale. It would be highly suspicious if a mechmath defended his dissertation on a profitable system of martingale play.)
So no matter how you spin it, Peter, you're still sick, even though you're technically healthy.
P.S. Take my last passage just as my imho. I don't think about Masterforex without any fanaticism, but I respect it for some of its thoughts.
So we go from one to the other - quantifying the price, then the time.
Is it appropriate to recall a stalled conversation here? - But having a self-similarity in the context of any Timeframe would be optimistic .
;)
I don't know about the similarity, but to me the task of trading consists in the identification of objective market processes and their correspondence. By process I mean everything that has a stable structure. At least an identifiable beginning and end or even separate stages/phases that follow each other.