Correlation of indicators - page 5
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
Mathemat писал(а) >>
Do you have a fully deductive trading system (in the sense of its rationale rather than practical working techniques)?
Yes.
But it depends on context. And the context hasn't been parameterised yet.
;)
I've already run out there and answered there.
Да.
But it is context-dependent. And the context is not yet parameterised.
;)
Not parametrized or not formalised?
Я уже убежал туда и ответил там.
Да.
Но оно зависима от контекста. А контекст еще не параметризован.
;)
Не параметризован или не формализован?
is not parameterised for me. The formal definition is practically applicable already. It doesn't matter which one to choose between the two.
And the FP parameters are not all that clear. Maxwell's Besicki didn't pass...
No one supported the doggy.
;)
No one has understood the doggy, it seems. You have a very cursory style of presentation. You should spell it out at least a little, because not all clever people understand each other at once :)
Собачку никто толком не понял, похоже. У Вас очень беглый стиль изложения. Разжевать надо хоть чуть-чуть, т.к. не всякие умные друг друга сразу понимают :)
Yep.
The two perfect opposites, ironically introduced by me, could be the parameters of the context.
But how do you measure them?
2 avatara: I'm rereading this thread carefully now, but haven't gotten to your doggie yet.
introduce a filter . ROC<-0.1 ATR<0.004 and another ROC >0.1
FС counts as the distance to the nearest best exit. 33 on H4. ;)
EURUSDH1 data from April 2006.
Data preparation was done by FAZA script.
I have the impression that either I'm in a madhouse (and it's no longer clear what quality I'm in) or I've come from another planet.
What kind of hammer do you want to wrestle... and, more importantly, from what? Probably, I shall seem to somebody excessively harsh, but excuse me - what the demand from the mad alien is.
I've been calling Michurinians, Faustians and other inquisitive imbeciles in a similar thread in terms of idiocy and substance. It seems that I made a mistake about your belonging to the genus Homo sapiens - the most accurate analogy for you is a monkey with a grenade. That is, the kind of monkey that has been taught a lot of tricks, including terver, but has not been explained that he - terver - is not for counting parrots. And a ruler is not for destroying fleas. Etc.
In your head (here I will not write IMHO! black is not blue in the ass) there is a wild mess of TA, indicators, MM and TS.
What, in the red army, can indicators have signals?! The signals may be only in your head. The indicators themselves only show what they are designed for. This is ANALYSIS! Signals are what conclusions you draw from the TA. This is already a TA. You should not confuse TA and TS.
Take for example a stochastic. Does it stand with a fucking gun to its head, showing sell/buy in the corresponding zones? No. It just shows where the price is relative to its extremes over %K bars. That's it!!! How you use this information in your TS is up to you. You can (for a sideways trend) work with these zones, you can confirm the trend (inverse logic), you can enter according to the principle "buy when it is expensive" etc. These will be different applications of the information obtained from the measuring instrument called Stochastic.
Well, how can you calculate the correlations and pile up (other branch)? What will it give you, except for shitting each other's brains and killing time?
For example, let's calculate the correlation between two indicators. Why and between their what? Signals that don't exist? A curve? Why??? Are these fucking black boxes? Arte fucking facts? What, you don't know what these analytical tools were made for and how? Oh, you don't know... Ah, it's still a matter of figuring it out...
Yes, let's calculate the correlation between the ruler and the changeless. Very useful work. Or between a micrometer and a yardstick. Let's bring in the whole modern mathematical apparatus. It's worth a dissertation. Nobel Prize.
Or let's cross a few turkeys and watch the melting of the depo with a quiet smile of a youngster. Ask yourself a question not what will happen if you combine, but what do you want to get by combining.
How can you expect anything from trading with such an approach?
Good luck. Suffer... ...further.
===
The most surprising thing for me is that this coven is attended by people I respect, as reasonable people and as experts in their field, of course.
To train their brains on a problem which is abstract to the point of complete idiocy, so that they do not get stale? Well, unless...