Avalanche - page 24
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
To calculate the average Rabbit step for any number of days, the indicator itself is not needed. The distance between its levels equals the previous day's price range multiplied by 0.236. It is more convenient to change the chart scale to daily and turn on the standard indicator Average True Range with a desired period (10 in your example). And then multiply the displayed result by 0.236.
You can try, but a longer averaging period (at least a month) and more of it to calculate the distance between Avalanche levels (I suggested 1/3 above) seems to me closer to the truth.
OK. The main thing is to understand what's being proposed. It doesn't matter how the pitch is counted, as long as it's correct.
This can be taken to external variables, as well as all "controversial".
I do not understand one thing, recently you were furiously defending the idea of Rabit indicator saying that the price is "magnetized" to its levels. If it is true, the price "walks" between them, and if we assume that it sees them, it must bounce from them or break them and go to the next one. This is my understanding of the levels that "price" sees... Take circular levels for an analogy. Price either hustles near them or(s) breaks through/breaks away sharply. In Avalanche, we have a corridor with pending orders for trend continuation along its edges so we should avoid price movements not only within the corridor but also, what is even more important, prices bouncing off of order placing levels, like the path of a ball in ping-pong, since alternate touching of levels increases the volume of orders.
Considering the above, we should place the Avalanche orders at Anti-Rabbit levels instead of Rabbit. You are proposing to step 1/3 of a day's range! Be consistent, if Rabit's pitch is divine and Avalanche is grail, compile them (Avalanche with Anti-Rabit).
Учитывая изложенное, необходимо выставлять ордера Лавины на уровнях не Рабит, а АнтиРабит. Вы же предлагаете шаг сделать равныфм 1/3 дневного диапазона! Будте последовательны, если шаг Рабита- божественнен, а Лавина- граальна, скомпилируйте их (Лавину с АнтиРабит).
Rabbit is designed for intraday trading. The levels in it change daily and yesterday's move makes no sense today. And you spend 10 minutes a day placing orders. You do not need to touch them again until the next day - everything will work out by itself.
"An avalanche, on the other hand, is not linked to a time scale - only to the price movement. If the distance between the levels is big enough, the price can move between them for a week without touching them. Or vice versa, it may go the same distance within a minute. Therefore Rabbit's move has nothing to do with an "Avalanche". But "Avalanche" requires a lot of your time - the price can crawl from level to level for hours and if you miss a reversal you make a loss. You can write and run an EA, but there is no guarantee that it will work all the time - and if it stops, you will lose again.
Rabbit is designed for intraday trading. The levels in it change daily and yesterday's move makes no sense today. And you spend 10 minutes a day placing orders. You do not need to touch them again until the next day - everything will work out by itself.
"An avalanche, on the other hand, is not linked to a time scale - only to the price movement. If the distance between the levels is big enough, the price can move between them for a week without touching them. Or vice versa, it may go the same distance within a minute. Therefore Rabbit's move has nothing to do with an "Avalanche". But "Avalanche" requires a lot of your time - the price can crawl from level to level for hours and if you miss a reversal you make a loss. You can write and run an EA, but there is no guarantee that it will work all the time and if it stops it will make a loss again.
Your presentation is easy to read. There is no need to repeat yourself and re-explain what works and how it works. I can see everything. If you have a nuclear engine (Rabit/AntiRabit step) and a cruiser hull (Avalanche), then you are not afraid of the Somali pirate (Forex).
It is strange, to explain it to the author of that and that, especially to the ardent defender of his children.
Поменьше эмоций - побольше разумных мыслей.
I have been pushing this very sensible idea to you for days now.
But you all prefer to be clever, to build theories instead of just checking it out.
But checking isn't interesting. We have to cheat and write a robot. Fiddling with history. Get frustrated that it doesn't work.
Or you can just meditate on the mantra "Work only manually... only by hand..."
I'll let you in on a little secret: the history test is very good at scrapping theories that roam the expanses of the Internet.
Я вам маленький секрет открою: тест на истории очень хорошо отправляет в утиль теории бродящие на просторах интернета.
1. With a small deposit, you should fix the loss after the number of turns you have chosen (three, five - you decide). In this case, all of the deposits will be returned to you, you will only lose the loss hanging between the levels. Which is easily recouped, because a large number of reversals - the exception, not the rule (otherwise the price would be oscillating for years in the corridor, for example, 40 points - which is wrong).
2. With a large deposit - Avalanche in its purest form. People were frightened by the deposit amount of 100.000 roubles - I understand that it is hard for them to imagine that there are traders whose deposits are measured in tens of millions of roubles and who can easily withstand both 10 and 20 reversals - and still take profit.
That's it - no matter how much you test, you will remain in profit in both variants.
Как теория "Лавина" безупречна - математически придраться не к чему. Для практики есть два выхода (ведь вас пугает возможное большое количество разворотов), уже описанных выше. Повторю специально для вас:
1. При маленьком депозите фиксировать убыток после вами выбранного количества разворотов (трех, пяти - вы сами решаете). При этом все залоги вам возвращают, теряется только висящий между уровнями минус. Который легко отыгрывается, так как большое количество разворотов - исключение, а не правило (иначе цена годами бы колебалась в коридоре, например, 40 пунктов - что неверно).
2. При большом депозите - "Лавина" в чистом виде. Людей пугали суммы залога в 100.000 рублей - я понимаю, им тяжело представить, что есть трейдеры, у которых депозит измеряется десятками миллионов рублей и которые могут спокойно выдержать и 10 и 20 разворотов - и все равно взять прибыль.
Вот и все - сколько бы вы не тестировали, при обоих вариантах останетесь в прибыли.
You claim all this for 2 reasons:
1) You have never tested this system, as arnautov rightly wrote, otherwise you would not have used the word "easy" in relation to "win back" and would not have stated about long swings in the 40 pips corridor to kill the deposit (for EURUSD in the 20 pips corridor there are more than 10 reversals per day, it is rare, but nevertheless).
2) You have never traded with high volumes, otherwise you wouldn't have written point 2.
PS. This system is called "Swing" and is not invented by you and repeatedly tested. I also tested it, and I have my Expert Advisor, and unlike you, I know how to increase my lot and how to roll over correctly, in order to support not 5-10 rolls (with 10 rolls the upper limit is 512 times higher according to your praised rules), but 10-20 (with a 10-15 times higher volume). At the same time I am not interested in this system because of the problems of technical interaction with brokerage companies when the deposit grows.
утверждали бы про длительные колебания в коридоре 40 пунктов для убивания депо (для EURUSD в коридоре 20п за сутки бывает больше 10-ти разворотов, это редкость, но тем не менее).
в 512 раз !), а 10-20 (при росте объема в 10-15 раз). При этом мне не интересна эта система, т.к. при росте депозита возникают проблемы технического взаимодействия с ДЦ.
When the corridor narrows, hundreds of reversals are possible - as one candle will overlap the entire distance between the levels. I wrote about correct distance selection several times - read posts in the thread.
I also wrote about technical problems with brokerage companies - so in real trading, we can only trade manually, any Expert Advisor will be stopped or its operation will be broken. This is a fact of life, not a theory.
I wrote that I may have invented a bicycle - I don't claim to be the creator. If such a system exists - fine. I can't cover every forum in the world. Can I have a link to a description of the "Swing" system?
as the deposit grows, there are problems of technical interaction with the DCs.
... I am not interested in this system, because when the deposit grows there are problems with technical interaction with DC.
What kind? The dough not being given or not being allowed to trade?
Can I have a link to a description of the Swing system?
Also TC Cheburashka is your competitor:)