Avalanche - page 411
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
No matter how much you take from the ceiling, according to your scheme of placing orders, keeping proportions and series of increasing volumes ( 0.10 - 0.20 - 0.20 - 0.24 - 0.28 - 0.30 - 0.35... - your example), the channel with a smaller width and a very remote b/w level, which stays in place, works. I have shown in the example what to look out for.
2. Is the example wrong? It's for b/w that stays in place...:
I didn't see that I had finished the post...
1. that's right. But I was talking about a channel whose b/w level is the same distance as the width of the channel and 1.5 more. (two examples) It was after that that I got really interested in this topic, but not in any way in your avalanche in its classical sense or for example its recent modification (avalanche 2). In your example, the distance to b/u level from the borders of the channel is 5, 6 times wider than the width of the main channel, i.e. the channel where the winding volumes occur, hence, the other statistics - 44 flips, not 16 or 12 ...
2. In view of the above, your example has nothing to do with reality.
The main channel in the example is 80 pips wide. From its borders is considered the distance to the breakeven level. Most of the cycles will be closed with profit either immediately, from the first order (50/50 chance to guess), or after the first reversal (again, I refer you to your own statistics). In the first case the breakeven level is located at the place where the order is placed, i.e. at the distance of the spread. In the second case it is at a distance of the same 80 points and not 5 or 6 as you have written.
The number of contractions between the orders is also taken as an example, as well as the multiplicity (division in half). You may stop after the first constriction, or you may narrow the corridor three or four times. You may decrease the corridor not by two, but by a factor of three or four at once, or vice versa, you may decrease the width little by little - a quarter at a time, for instance.
This example is not an axiom, but a principle.
A sequence of increasing order volume amounts for any channel width. The width of the channel does not matter - the volumes will increase in exactly the same way. And the breakeven level will also remain in place.
Yes, the width does not matter, what matters is the ratio of the channel width to the distance by which the breakeven level is separated from its borders.
The main channel in the example is 80 pips wide. From its borders is considered the distance to the breakeven level. Most of the cycles will be closed with profit either immediately, from the first order (chance to guess 50/50) or after the first reversal (again, I refer you to your own statistics). In the first case the breakeven level is located at the place where the order is placed, i.e. at the distance of the spread. In the second case it is at a distance of the same 80 points and not 5 or 6 as you have written.
The number of contractions between the orders is also taken as an example, as well as the multiplicity (division in half). You may stop after the first constriction, or you may narrow the corridor three or four times. You may decrease the corridor not by two, but by a factor of three or four at once, or vice versa, you may decrease the width little by little - a quarter at a time, for instance.
This example is not an axiom, but a principle.
1. 1 pose-yes, 2 pose-yes, but where is the third? and it's 20ppt from the second. Then, you open opposite positions with one being 20 pips away from the other. That's where the channel is! And where's the b/u? it's the same as for the 80pp. channel, and we already have a working channel of 20pp... accordingly, the ratio of the channel width (20pp.) to the distance of the b/u level (which was for the 80pp. channel) has changed not in our favour. And this is already a different statistic, where it's not 12 or 16 flips, but 44.
2. oh, now the other options, you can do it this way and that way...
What's the principle? You laid out the principle at the beginning of this thread, and now... so... nothing.
Well, I don't really come on this thread that often.
And I come here less and less every time.
less and less..... less and less................ less and less............................ less and less..........................................................
So, in the limit, is there hope that you'll go completely extinct? And won't REPEAT?
Let's check this trend.... ! )))
restless:)))
No, on the contrary, the man has calmed down - he's tired of trying different indicators and strategies and now he's tired of mathematics and nothing more.
No, on the contrary, the man has calmed down - he's tired of trying indicators and strategies and now there's only maths and nothing more
and so true:)
restless:)))
You don't know anything about the subject and there's no need to comment!