To follow up - 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
As far as I understand Peter, the very notion of context is already linked to prediction. Implicitly.
Peter, I hope I don't step on your toes with this statement. I'm not going to get into a tug of war over whether we predict (or predict) or not, I'm not interested in that. However, every context is necessarily (!!!) linked to an attitude to buy, sell or sit on the fence.
Not necessarily. (1)
And in that sense it is in itself already an implicit prediction of further market behaviour.
I agree with that.
Another thing is that it can be reversed in the next second, even if it occurred only a second ago. Isn't it ? But that's what any TS goes under, after all it's a market.
So, imho, let's just leave this prediction fight alone, it's not getting us anywhere anyway. And also the issue of predicting context as knowingly tautological.
Let me not refer to you when I talk about misconceptions and myths about TA. Just write that as an epigraph to the post - it's not for Yurixx. ok? ))) Just kidding.
In fact, for all its seeming "verbiage", it is the most fundamental thing which gives rise to a lot of misconceptions and misconceptions about TA. What it is and what it's for. And does it work?
Well, for example, there is a widespread opinion that classical TA is obsolete and cannot be used at modern markets exactly because of its decrepitude. But it is not so. Not in the sense that it still works, but in the sense that it - the TA - did not work the way they try to use it "now". It is easy to make sure of that: the archive of quotes is available from the times when no one knew anything about MA, let alone their solutions, Stochastic, etc., which are considered as classics. It is enough to run a test on any Expert Advisor based on the classic indicators and see that its results are as similar as if we ran the test on contemporary data. Indeed, what these "ancient" analytical tools described has not disappeared from the market. Waves, trends, corrections - everything is there. The divergence of the slowdown was showing and is still showing. And Mashka has not suddenly started to be considered different.
So, what is the reason? Why have I so much research, studies, books, etc., if it all does not work? Is it all a giant scam? )))
And here's the thing, in my opinion. When a trader at that time applied these classical methods, he applied them when he thought that this application would be adequate to the current state of the market. That is, the context, be damned. So to say (1) that defining context necessarily implies working in a certain direction or not working is not entirely accurate. Generally speaking, it's simply either apply the TA technique or not. You know very well that on a thin, sluggish market the diverters, or other geometric figures such as "heads and shoulders" will not work - the wrong context. But on a brisk, full of fire, with liquidity spilling over the edge - yes. And in what direction - we will see.
Yes, all very logical. It turns out that the context in Peter's understanding filters the hint signals of the inductor. More precisely, the context (K) and the indicator (I) are connected symmetrically: S = K && I. Here S is the final trading decision. S is true if and only if K and AND are true.
Or is there still an objection to symmetry?
As a follow up to the "split edge/decay smoothing".
This is not the best there is, as it is linked to time framing, but compared to conventional approaches to adaptation via volatility, it shows better results.
Let me remind you of the essence. The task was to make a filter that would instantly react to volatility increase, but at the same time filter its noise fluctuations at the reached level.
In the Code Base there is an indicator that separately smoothes the std deviation. I complemented it with mods for volume and ATR.
Input parameters:
Source - choice of source for volatility. 0 - volume, 1 - true range, 2 - standard deviation.
SourcePeriod - period of source smoothing (volume, ATR) or sample for st.dev.
FrontPeriod, BackPeriod are smoothing periods for edge, attenuation. EMA algorithm. Both its coefficients (0...1) and usual periods can be set at once.
Sens - hard threshold-sensitivity cut-off in pps or in ticks/lots for volume.
Call from code:
Output buffers (n).
0 - source.
1 - its split-smoothed EMA.
Snapshot. From top to bottom Volume (Socrce=0), ATR (Socrce=1), St.deviation (Socrce=2). In all cases there is no front smoothing for maximum response (FrontPeriod=1), but attenuation smoothing for noise filtering is used (BackPeriod).
Svinozavr писал(а) >>
In general, it is simply a matter of applying the TA method or not. You know very well that in a thin, sluggish market the same diverters, or other geometric figures like "goal-shoulders" will not work - not the right context. But on a brisk, full of fire, with liquidity spilling over the edge - yes. And in what direction - we will see.
The example with the figures is bad, because it suggests that the market is "guilty" of the fact that the instrument (geometrical figures) isn't working...
It makes sense to come up with other tools for those analyses that will more adequately show the market movement...
Not necessarily. (1)
...
And the point here is this, in my opinion. When a trader in those days applied these classical methods, he applied them when he thought that this application would be adequate to the current state of the market. That is, the context, be damned. So to say (1) that defining context necessarily implies working in a certain direction or not working is not entirely accurate. Generally speaking, it's simply either apply the TA technique or not. You know very well that on a thin, sluggish market the diverters, or other geometric figures such as "heads and shoulders" will not work - the wrong context. But on a brisk, full of fire, with liquidity spilling over the edge - yes. And we will see in what direction.
I am not going to argue about whether it is necessary or not. This is really unimportant. I just seem to understand your term "context" wider than the author.
Just to say. If you don't apply TA technique, neither this one nor any other, what do you do ? I assumed sitting on the fence. If you have other options - share, it's interesting.
PS "about misconceptions and myths about TA"
Please put me back on the list of contenders for getting rid of myths and misconceptions. Because I am not a snob (I hope), not burdened with too morbid an ego (I think so), do not claim to know the absolute truth (by definition), have a certificate of passing mekdkomissiya and good characteristics from places of work, and also because I think that getting rid of myths and misconceptions the best cure for Forex, I believe that I, as a man and a citizen, have every right to be restored to the list.
I agree with the forum's Statute and undertake to obey it.
Whether or not you have to, I won't argue. It's really irrelevant. I just seem to understand your term "context" more broadly than the author.
That please - I would consider it an honour. (I'm already being interpreted. That's nice. >>)) Although, it may just be that I'm a little short-tongued - I have to be interpreted.))
Just to say. If you don't apply TA technique, neither this one nor any other, what do you do ? I assumed sitting on the fence. If you have other options - share, it's interesting.
OK. Sitting on the fence. That's fine. Then it would sound like "either sit on the fence or trade". But it does NOT generally imply "set to buy or sell", the context itself may not set the direction of the trade. That's what I wanted to emphasise. As it is... the consensus is enough to continue to speak the same language... And what the hell with them, the nuances))))
PS "about misconceptions and myths about TA"
Please put me back on the list of contenders for getting rid of myths and misconceptions. Because I am not a snob (I hope), not burdened with too morbid an ego (I think so), do not claim to know the absolute truth (by definition), have a certificate of passing mekdkomissiya and good characteristics from places of work, and also because I think that getting rid of myths and misconceptions the best cure for Forex, I believe that I, as a man and a citizen, have every right to be restored to the list.
I agree with the forum's Statute and undertake to obey it.
Bazinga!!!)) Oh, come on! I was just kidding. I even put that in there for fun.
Yes, all very logical. It turns out that the context in Peter's understanding filters the hint signals of the inductor. More precisely, the context (K) and the indicator (I) are connected symmetrically: S = K && I. Here S is the final trading decision. S is true if and only if K and AND are true.
Or is there still an objection to symmetry?
Seems to me it is a "fabrication of superfluous entities" according to Ockham.
If by definition an indicator gives us one (or two or three) numbers to assess the situation, then this entity - the indicator - represents only too narrow a view of the market. In this sense, to base your trading decisions on it is to deliberately mislead yourself. The market dominance changes and this indicator "starts lying", and the other one "tells the truth". But in fact, this is only because neither of them can adequately determine the market condition.
Context is a wider notion. It can include any information that allows one to make the necessary decisions. Even FA data. The only question is if the set of all these means of analysis is actually able to adequately describe the state of the market. That's why I raised the issue of parameterisation of market conditions. It's a pity that nobody supported it. Except you, Alexey. It's scary to think, what if no one knows this set of parameters. :-)
Buggahaha!!!)) Oh, come on! I was just kidding. I even put it down as a joke.
So was I. :-)))
the example of shapes is a bad one because it suggests that the market is "at fault" for the tool (the geometry) not working...
Could I have implied such a thing? Then I didn't make myself clear enough, if that's how you understood me. Of course not - not "guilty". It's strange, really... The culprit, of course, is the woeful analyst who tries to weigh taste with a ruler.
It makes sense to come up with other tools for those analyses that will more adequately show the market movements...
I agree. Only it would be a good start to learn how to apply the "old" ones, don't you think? Otherwise, you've probably seen "TA doesn't work" and the like in forums. And how, when the person, who has "TA doesn't work", uses it, it's like the 5th thing for him. The stochastic must give a fucking buy signal from the PP zone and shit on it. And if it does, but then the market goes lower - "it doesn't work!!!".
So let's first understand the context of use, okay? In all the books there is no mention, or only a passing reference to when you can or cannot use this or that technique. But this, as it turns out in practice, is almost the most important thing. If I were to write books (now!), I would devote the lion's share of explanations to this.
I think this is "fabrication of superfluous entities" according to Ockham.
If, by definition, an indicator gives us one (or two or three) numbers to evaluate the situation, then this entity - the indicator - represents only too narrow a view of the market. In this sense, to base your trading decisions on it is to deliberately mislead yourself. The market dominance changes and this indicator "starts lying", and the other one "tells the truth". But in fact, this is only because neither of them can adequately determine the market condition.
Context is a wider notion. It can include any information that allows one to make the necessary decisions. Even FA data. The only question is if the set of all these means of analysis is actually able to adequately describe the state of the market. That's why I raised the issue of parameterisation of market conditions. It's a pity that nobody supported it. Except you, Alexey. It's scary to think, what if no one knows this set of parameters. :-)
"The Russian man is broad. It would be nice to narrow it down." (Dostoevsky)
For God's sake, discuss in a broader sense. I've just come to my practice of not paying attention to anything beyond the quotient stream. (Well... almost.)) That's why I've been pushing so hard about TA. And you're welcome.
As for "parameterisation of market states" - similar to the paragraph above. I am doing this in a more "narrow" sense. More precisely, but in a narrower set of input parameters.