Probability, how do you turn it into a pattern ...? - page 14
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
And it's not zombification by pseudoscientific phrases a la "synchrophasotronic metodynamics of synergetic parallelism" ?
Nah, it's not zombification. It's clowning. :-)
I, for one, had fun reading it. However, I didn't get the impression that it was a deliberate trickery. Here on the forum, I often have to read such "streams of consciousness" that one cannot help wondering "does the author realize what he's saying? In most cases, this is a conflict with the Russian language. However, in rare cases (such as this one), it is the opposite - the author knows too many words. But it's better than dumb obtuseness, isn't it? I agree ?
В своей ветке ВикторАрт (непревзойденный гений, автор Общей Теории Торговли и универсального конструктора ТС, мания величия которого значительно превосходит, а результаты торговли явно не дотягивают) хоть и столкнулся с критикой, но вполне корректной. Никто его там не оплевывал и навозом в него не кидал. Даже после того, как он сказал все, что имел.
Short of what?
As far as I remember, no exact boundary was given by me:Source
"27.11.2009, 06:05
Current status:
1. there are 14 current active trading robots (counted by the number of notifications coming from them).
2. New executable scripts for MT4 are working properly.
3. the current configuration of adaptive trading robots should theoretically cope successfully with any phases of the market.
Plans:
1. Improvement of reliability:
a) moving to a new even more powerful server.
b) automation of monitoring of trading servers - it will allow our sysadmins to react more operatively to potential problems.
2. Increased profitability.
If everything works as it should, there will be no new adaptive trading robots for quite a long time. The focus will be on fine-tuning the current configuration."
Since then, "Maximum relative profit 131.07% (10.03.2010)"
Promised to just raise it - raised it.
Это реакция непроизвольная. В данном случае на "манию величия & синдром учительства".
Такое бывает когда человек в себе какую-то склонность подавляет, считая аморальной, и видя у кого-то, считает что другой неправ по определению, ибо её (ту же склонность) в себе подавлять обязан из тех же "очевидных" моральных соображений.
Ну и рационализации умственные своему отношению всегда в запасе, например: "Настоящий гура должон быть скромен! ". /* типа как Я :) */ "А ежли нескромен - то эт ненастоящий гура, а вовсе самозванец. Ату его!".
Я вот в данном случае спокойно отношусь к происходящему. Ибо давно не пытаюсь подавлять у себя ни манию величия, ни синдром учительства. Пущай себе цветут ежли им нравитца... :) А я ими на досуге развлекаться буду. Тем более что всё равно бесполезно - величие оно за версту видно..! :))
Кстати, вот ты тут травлю и брызганье слюной подавлять взялся... В эту же схему вписывается.. Не находишь?
;)
Gentlemen, there is a consistent trend and you all write about it, a series of independent tests with given equal conditions, leads to a level of quite high stabilisation in the period while striving for a 50/50 distribution of results. I've given examples, you've run and tested too, in short nothing new. Everything tends to averaging performance, and as I noticed, the greater the number of instruments, the more stable the result. So stable, that analyzing the parallel trends (patterns), on the basis of which most of you have built models of market behavior, I come to the conclusion that they are really inferior.
The market moves up and down - super accepted, it has a connection to the actions of the majority, carried away by one idea in the medium term (Elliot) - super accepted, many people are carried away by the pattern drawing from the market memory, they draw such beauty on history with the help of the wands :))) I'm not mocking you, I'm just giving you the facts.
You're somewhat unclear about my attitude to the 50/50 distribution, so it's not a problem, it's a topic of conversation, (no more) .......... about understanding the exploitation of this trend.
One of the questions on the thread is "What market pattern will generate profits?" I answer, - the systematic elimination of negative balance, by absorbing it with an unbalanced (in time) analogue system of action. Technically I reach a conditionally stable state of the matrix model, then bring it back to a primary chaotic state and once again it tends to stabilise in the period. That is how I exploit this tendency and get profit. MM is present as a measure of achieving the goal in a given cycle period.
I stressed several times in my posts that the desired cycle period, will be determined by elimination method, for this the first stage of the system gives me an opportunity to make the equation formula, and just for this, I make a series of tests with the same conditions at the start. I get to operate on the timing criteria of the last (second cycle). It will definitely be the last, the reason for this condition is that profit planned to be extracted, does not need additional acceleration of the system. The level is reached - the cycle is complete. And talk of over-cycling has no place here.
Imagine for example that the pyramid of orders strengthened against the trend (according to the well-known card Player's method) will always close on the second number in the series. I solved this problem using the most stable pattern - the tendency of stabilization in a period. (I'm talking about the second digit of the series quite conditionally, because in the literal sense I'm stabilizing the slumped positions under the cover of the created positive balance, again, as a starting point for calculating current slippage)
I have also given arguments about mirroring, there were talks about the need to do something with correlated phenomena, thank you for your concern - it's already done.
The time factor, as a determining factor, where is the boundary between a regular but complexly organised structure and chaos? A criterion may be the stability of the emerging formations in the flow against small perturbations (cycles of short, medium, and long duration) . If there is no such a stability, the deterministic description loses its meaning and it is necessary to use the statistical methods.
As we know, the mathematical image of the steady periodic oscillations is a limit cycle, and of quasi-periodic oscillations - an invariant torus. Both stable cycles and invariant tores are attractors (literally - "attractors") since, in a direct sense, they attract all close trajectories. Physically, this means that when deviating from such oscillations (due to any influences) the system returns to them again after some time, i.e. such motion is as if attracting. A simple example here is the usual clock pendulum.
Let me remind you that I gave a description of half of the logical model.
Thank you all.
Об определении монетки, фальшивая ли она, написано тоже в википедии: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_whether_a_coin_is_fair Ничего о "закономерностях" Форекса, кроме "цитирования" самого себя автор пока не написал.
Page 5 of the thread.
Economics YES, but let's relate the volume of nonsense to the real economic criteria that affect...
Millions of Eliot followers are sitting and each of them is drawing waves, getting some support and resistance levels, most of them for their favorite timeframe, another whole army is running tons of history through the "sinkers" persistently trying to find that "golden" setting, which will absorb all movements in one go, some are sitting and waiting to see what happens to the psychological level with zeros after the comma, etc.
And then the long-awaited news comes out (the Greeks unveiled the plan of coming out of the crisis :))))), and the process starts, the channels are forming, the price bounces from them, the wires are twisting, levels with zeros are shaking under the pressure of ......... - is it funny?
Daytraders, so addicted to technology that they're trending hourly cycles, not news.
I, on the other hand, simply walk away from the whole thing, I take a completely primitive approach, taking the actual event that has occurred as an input to the solution. And I don't make any exceptions to the rules.
Let's just approach the understanding of what is happening as a very primitive movement, without distracting ourselves from the preconditions and causes.
And finally, tell me, for the third time I'm asking a question:
What the hell does "in period" mean?
Да ничего нового я и не увидел, кроме наплевательства, Петр. Что я, не вижу, что ли, что кривая эквити будет вынуждена все время догонять кривую баланса? Удивила просто массовость входов, на основании которой автор пытается доказать, что сделал что-то новое. И еще при этом пытается научить нас, как правильно понимать вероятность.
I am not trying to teach anyone anything.
Understanding probabilistic processes lies in the plane of moving away from the stereotypical representation of the behaviour of a mathematical model.
The time distortion factor that exists in my logic was perceived by you as primitive over-simulation, I know the reason for your conclusion.
You simply have not encountered an alternative approach, and there are a great many of them, but you know nothing about them. And yet they exist whether you know about them or not. Sorry, that's not a criticism.
Let me give you an example on the subject:
Within a long position with a target of 500 pips(current state (+), there are several medium ones (-/+/-/+/-/+), and more short ones (-/+/-/+/+/-/+/+/+/-/+) (imagine such a matryoshka), during each individual cycle for each individual position there is a different time factor (each position lives in its cycle period) that can be compared both quantitatively and in the balance between them. Although they are unrelated to each other, I consider them as a whole. Cyclically bringing them into an unstable state and profiting from their striving for balance average stabilisation.
Notions of resonance, coefficients of attraction of equal values in different time periods, is an area that exists outside your field of vision. (I may be wrong).
All I've heard so far are some great statements about positive and negative expectation.
Thanks
In the meantime, with your permission, I am posting a new test. Flipped a coin 27 times, and now four eagles came out. Let's see now...
...
Фактор искажения времени, существующий в моей логике был вами воспринят, как примитивная пересидка...
Maybe this is a revelation to you, but all higher mathematics can be described in terms of "what to subtract from where and where to add to".
So there is no need to be afraid of primitivism, but if you explain it primitively, your so-called system consists of locks and over-silence.
Может для вас это открытие но всю высшую математику можно описать в выражениях "чего откуда отнять и куда прибавить"
так что не нужно бояться примитивизма, а вот если объяснять примитивно то ваша т.н. система и состоит из локов и пересидки.
Given that this is not TA, but something else, we can close our eyes to both loki and overlap.But it cannot and will not work anyway because it is nonsense, the only proof to the contrary would be monitoring, but it is not there either.
I can not understand the point of this thread (unless it's a naked advertisement for a seminar in Yalta, where you will be told the second secret part).