Classical analysis 'doesn't work'? - 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
From the task of "achieving stability".
Plum? :)
Слива? :)
No matter what :)
Equity could have gone either up or down equally.
***Considers***
I don't know what you guys are talking about here, but my tenet is. "classical analysis doesn't work in automatic mode, like everything else you have to over-optimize."
everyone does it on their own when they're trading manually, you just don't see it.
I don't know if I should... Maybe once in a while? In order to, you know, practice...
In a day:
General:
How much is that in points?
About 500 on all trades. I traded once per side with same lot. Two pairs. GBP and GBP. 8 trades, + one more :)
Helen, is it possible to show some trade, from history, or just a virtual one on current data with justification based on CTA. Like: it's worth buying the Aussie more now because Demark this, RSI that...? Maybe, it is too much to ask, but I am not trying to extract any secrets, what kind of secrets are in classical analysis, when everything is in books? As you started this thread, may be you have time for a little example, demonstrating your arguments.
...Важно другое. Все кто считают что КТА не работает - более прогрессивны...
Where does this classification of progressiveness come from? Turning away from the development of what is available, due to a lack of understanding of the processes - progress?! How does the search for 'new' begin, what does the seeker think (as he thinks of himself)? Exaggeratedly... "...So. I've done a lot of theoretical research, spent 5 days in practical research ( a week, two days, etc. ahoy trade) and with all the authority I know, I declare to myself that all this is rubbish!!! and does not work!!! If it worked, I'd make it work too!!! Sigismund's didn't work either!!! Since I can't be wrong (and the two of us with Sigi are out of the question altogether), the assessment is correct and non-negotiable!!!". And the process of "progress" begins. Sounds like it, doesn't it? I'm not personal, I've just observed this more than once.
And they are likely to invent new methods of BP analysis and new trading strategies, i.e. bring more benefits to trading (as a science) in general than CTA supporters, who are mostly content with what they have: "... what they have is OK..." ("Old New Year" movie).
The finale, the commercial finale, will be as sad for the inventor as the beginning, and so... endless. Because the "inventor" does not take into account (paradoxically!) the most elementary thing: without knowing what he wants to invent, it is impossible to invent this something. И... If he knows, the tools of classical analysis (indicator, graphical) are more than enough for invention, and then... only to improve.
If a "craftsman" does not know how to build a house with an axe and a plane cutter (evaluate the knowledge :) ), he will start inventing additional, "progressive" tools... for example "benzokrivopilu", "round-circle cutter", "shchassamokrutnik" etc., etc. Well, can't build a house himself, fine. But can the tools invented really be of use to the craftsman? No. Unless the craftsman is suicidal. Why? Because the "inventor" does not know what is necessary to build a house and creates a heap of junk which is dangerous for the master.
In exchange: "Do not touch the equipment, it will not let you down!" Also from some movie. :)
I repeat: nothing personal, just an exchange of opinions. We argue... Maybe we'll get closer to the truth...