To follow up - page 15
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
Well, I'm not complaining. I'm all for it. That's what I wrote about.
It's just that Alexey tried to sort of divide it: indicators here, and the context there. But I think it is not necessary. So I said so.
By the way, if by context you mean conditions of application of any TA means, then say it directly. It would be a very concrete clarification. Because, unfortunately, so far the concept of context, as well as your understanding of it, remains very vague. I must say that it creates some difficulties. We are finishing page 14 and the understanding is extremely shaky.
Well, I'm not complaining. I'm all for it. That's what I wrote about.
It's just that Alexey tried to sort of divide it: indicators here, and the context there. But I think it is not necessary. So I spoke out.
I think so too. Only it seems that the division went by logic - analysis and decision making. Or am I talking about something else? If so, the division is extremely important. Without understanding that the analysis of the market is first of all analysis (I have already written!), and not forecasting, it is difficult to move forward. Because of such misunderstanding we get an opinion (another myth) that TA is a bullshit, like the delirium of a fortune-teller. For me TA (again) is primarily a measuring tool, not a way to know the future. To know the present is the purpose of TA as I see it.
And here is another misconception, if we are speaking of it. Many people do not distinguish between TA and TS. Because of the confusion of TA and TC they come to believe that TA doesn't work at all. Anyone. What doesn't really work is their TA, the way they use TA. It's not the TA's fault - it's just "measuring". And the stochastic actually shows not "buy/sell" but the current price position relative to price extremes over a non-sample (%K). But convincing them of this is very difficult - people tend to blame anyone and anything but their own abilities. They have the wrong system of grenades... But that's just it... I digress.
===
An indicator of context... Will that do? ))) You've got to rank the indices by objectives somehow.
By the way, if by context you mean conditions of use of all sorts of TA tools, then say so directly. That would be a very specific clarification. For, unfortunately, so far the concept of context, as well as your understanding of it, remains very vague. I must say that it creates some difficulties. We are nearing the end of page 14 and the understanding is very fragile.
I'm speaking frankly. I'm not even saying it, I'm repeating it. For me it's just TA. But someone may be more comfortable and accurate in using and/or FA. It's just not my case. And the news, and fund.indicators, and... only bring more uncertainty to my conclusions. That's why I (to reiterate) am only talking about TA methods here. You want to add non-TA methods, be my guest. I'll only be glad if it helps you to improve the quality of your analysis.
===
Of course, it's impossible to be limited to TA. For example, I won't get into shorts on a security before dividends are paid, as shorts before this case will be forcibly closed to me. Obviously it has nothing to do with TA. And so on and so forth the nuances of trading.
Please put me back on the list of applicants to get rid of myths and misconceptions [...] believe that I, as a person and a citizen, have every right to be reinstated to the list.
Great, our regiment of regular and non-anonymous pharmacy visitors has arrived!
Well, there are more regular and anonymous pharmacy patrons than ever before!
>> (grunts) conspiracy, huh? ))))))
Svinozavr писал(а) >>
And how, when the guy whose "TA doesn't work" uses it, it's like the 5th thing for him. The fucking stochastic should give a buy signal from the PP zone and shit on it. And if it does, but then the market goes lower - "it doesn't work!!!".
Stochastic gives a buy signal in the PP zone, and you can go fuck yourself. If it gave a signal but the market then went lower - "It doesn't work"! Exactly for this reason we should create new tools for market analysis, God willing, that a couple of people out of a hundred look into the code of existing alien tools and try to understand not only the algorithm essence, but also try to understand how to use the results of this algorithm, while the rest just look at lines, points and other stuff...
If you have a classical tool available, you can not only understand the essence of the algorithm, but are trying to understand how to use results of this algorithm, while others are just looking at lines, points and etc. So, imho, it's better to come up with ideas and implement them yourself, which may result in the same indicators that have already been created, but it will be a handmade bicycle with a full understanding of what it is, what it is for, how it is designed and so on, rather than the ability to ride on it...
but if the classic analysis tools available are not universal, then something new and perhaps more meaningful than what is already there will be created...
It is for this reason that we should create new tools for market analysis, God willing, that a couple of people out of a hundred look into the code of an existing alien tool and try to understand not only the essence of the algorithm, but also try to understand how you can use the results of this algorithm, while others just look at lines, points and so on...
Well that's why these two are making money and the rest are complaining about TA and life. They should go to hell, what's there to say about them... especially here? You can't use the TA method without understanding it. It's not a calculator.
If you have a classical tool available, you can not only understand the essence of the algorithm, but are trying to understand how to use results of this algorithm, while others are just looking at lines, points and etc. So, imho, it's better to come up with ideas and implement them yourself, which may result in the same indicators that have already been created, but it will be a self-made bike with a full understanding of what it is, what it is for, how it is built, etc., rather than just knowing how to ride it...
But I'm ready to subscribe to this - a very correct approach. To write an indicator by yourself, even a well-known one, means at least to understand its structure and what to expect from it. Or to implement your own idea - it does not matter what will happen. The main thing is a meaningful approach.
But you take a strange premise for such conclusions - what is the fault of what has already been invented? It is as if each time to invent a new method - let's begin, perhaps, with Pythagoras trousers (or even earlier - I am not the historian of science), then we will invent Newton's laws, diff.ish. etc. etc.
Have you tried studying?))
But if the classic analysis tools available are not universal, something new and perhaps more meaningful than what's already there will be created...
It's strange to argue with this - but "pro")))
Svinozavr писал(а) >>
But you take a strange premise for such conclusions - what's the fault of something already invented?
..
Have you tried studying?)))
..
... assumptions from the fact that 1. information about classical instruments is not knowledge about them (I repeat again), 2. if they were so good, then there would be no talk about how to use them...
The premise is that 1. information about classical instruments is not knowledge about them (again I repeat), 2. if they were that good, there would be no talk about how to use them...
1. (I repeat again) Have you not tried learning? 2. It wasn't about whether they are good or not, it was about knowing how to use them. You want to talk about their qualities? Go ahead. Only then you need to state the topic first, otherwise your argument precedes the subject.
===
If you don't mind, let's not get hung up on it. I simply have nothing more to add to the current micro discussion with you. I'm out of words))).
===
You seem to have one too...))) Let's not repeat ourselves, ok?
Guys, let's not get bogged down in arguments. A verbal approach does not ensure 100% mutual understanding, so clinging to words is pointless. You are both talking about the same thing: a man should approach his actions in the market with his head. If you pick up a tool, understand what it is, how it is designed and, most importantly, how to use it, how it works, what it can and cannot do. One needs only to read the definition of the indicator algorithm, another needs to decipher the code line by line, and still another needs to write his or her own. What's the difference? The main thing is to achieve full awareness.
I'm sure that if you take your mind off of each other's concrete forms of expression, you will feel/understand that we all are one (although we are not so many). And therefore, we can safely move on. We've been stomping on the doorstep for too long. We have taken such an interesting walk and we still can't move more than three steps away.
I'm telling you straight. I'm not even saying it, I'm saying it again. For me it's just TA. But someone may be more comfortable and accurate using and/or FA. It's just not my case. And the news, and fund.indicators, and... only bring more uncertainty to my conclusions. That's why I (to reiterate) am only talking about TA methods here. You want to add non-TA methods, be my guest. I'll be only glad if it helps you to improve the quality of analysis.
It's understandable. For me too. I mentioned FA purely out of generality. So don't take it personally, FA won't come between us. :-)
The separation of analysis and decision-making is also not objectionable. A normal, competent approach to the TC structure.
Let me remind you that Alexey separated context and indicators. I suggested that the context may include indicators, their application conditions, conditions for transition to a decision making and many other things. And all this will be an analysis, and exclusively of the quote flow data. So, all this will be TA. And what is your point of view? My question to you regarding the content you put in the concept of context was precisely because you stubbornly conceal it. Maybe it's time to come clean? Otherwise we'll never get out of this "ruminating on the tree".
PS
This must feel like an interrogation. With a little bit of passion. :-)))
I'd rather talk about what's on my mind:
С формальной точки зрения контекст представляет собой определенную систему отсчета..
;)