What is everyone looking for? - page 11
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
If you try to answer the question "why are you looking at the monitor now?", how many reasons can you find?
I recommend really doing it. Write out 20 or 30 reasons.
And even better repeat the procedure many times, with different surrounding facts.
"Why is spring coming?"
"Why are there letters on the keyboard?"
"Why does forex exist?"
etc.
This will help get rid of the empty hopes of being able to find out "the right reasons". It's impossible to find out what doesn't exist.
// By the way - and useless. But that's another topic.
Your way of thinking is unsystematic (at the time of writing the post). Improve.
The way of thinking has nothing to do with it and the reason may be a different level of concept. It is possible not to understand the essence of interactions of objects thoroughly, but some level of abstraction verified by statistical studies must be present. Otherwise, every time you create a system, you start from a blank sheet and any system-building is a fitting of history. You may not know the laws of universal gravitation, but when a brick falls on your head, understand that it may cause serious consequences.
I would advise you to keep your mouth shut and watch your way of thinking :D)
Способ мышления тут не причем и причина м.б. понятием разного уровня. Можно не понимать сути взаимодействий объектов досканально, но некоторый уровень абстракции, проверенный стат. исследованиями должен присутствовать. Иначе каждый раз при создании системы начинаешь с чистого листа и любое системостроительство это подгонка под историю. Можно не знать законов всемирного тяготения, но когда тебе на голову падает кирпич, понять что это м.б. причиной тяжелых последствий.
Вам бы посоветовал поменьше флудить и следить за собственным способом мышления :D)
You don't have to be offended. But you can. But not necessarily. But if you really want to.... So it's up to you... ))
You don't have to be offended. But you can. But not necessarily. But if you really want to.... So it's up to you... ))
Judge not and ye shall not be judged. >> Especially if you don't understand what it's all about and consider yourself more clever than your interlocutor :)
Coming to personalities, I want to tell that stumbling on your posts I have not found anything except laughter and frank lamerism in the subject. Therefore, your professional evaluation is absolutely parallel to me. It is unpleasant only instructive indulgence (form) :)
да не судите и не судимы будете. Особенно не понимая о чем речь и заведомо считая себя умнее собеседника :)
I didn't judge. You imagined it.
I didn't judge, you imagined it.
Who wrote this verdict))):Your way of thinking is haphazard (at the time of writing the post). Improve. Develop.
Переходя на личности, хочу сказать что натыкаясь на ваши посты ничего кроме смехуёчков и откровенного ламерства по предмету в них не нашел. Поэтому ваши проф.оценки мне абсолютно параллельны. Неприятно только поучительское снисхождение :)
There must be deep reasons for this.... :)
А этот вердикт кто написал))):
The way of thinking has nothing to do with it and the reason may be a different level of concept. It is possible not to understand the essence of interactions of objects thoroughly, but some level of abstraction verified by statistical studies must be present. Otherwise, every time you create a system, you start from a blank sheet and any system-building is a fitting of history. You may not know the laws of universal gravitation, but when a brick falls on your head, understand that it may cause serious consequences.
I'd advise you to keep your mind off this and watch your own way of thinking :D)
I sometimes get the impression, that everybody knows all the answers, except me ( I trade with hands - at me 98-97% of deals are closed successfully on average, what I earn, I have enough to live on and on sweets with very high requests) and not one (or two or three.... ) year ... But I personally do not know how to automate my trading - I've made an indicator, which is probably the best of what is after the fractals (and in fact it's forrathals) have analyzed hundreds if not thousands of crap and looking at what everyone is looking for without understanding what they need - trying to figure out and explain even someone that in order to look one should understand what exactly should be found. In this topic formulated a clear criterion - which can quickly and objectively reject (without wasting time and money) any crap like the amount of next wave or some kind of oredredredney filter ... And before that in other thread I have offered a criterion for evaluation of TC itself, comparing it with some reference ETS. And still 99% of it is not read or read diagonally and end up with rubbish (Leo does not count - it's like we joke with him this way) ... So don't take these answers to heart - I have the impression that almost everyone here (and everywhere else) trading is just a hobby. And there is a corresponding attitude - like "no and don't need it". If we want it to be more than a hobby we have to be serious about it, dedicate all our free time to it. In order to understand "how it works" one must first learn to trade with one's hands, not for a month or two or three months but for one year as a minimum, and set a goal: as long as I earn so much on the demo, I won't go to the real one. And then the demo money will become almost real. But it seems that only 20 percent listen.
But the point is - according to your post - there is an indicator for the eye - and there is one for the computer - for the eye it is one good and not suitable for the computer. So I'm talking about those for the eye and those for the computer.
I sometimes get the impression that everyone already knows the answers to all questions, except me (I trade with my hands - my average 98-97% of deals are closed successfully, what I earn, I have enough to live on and for sweets at a very high level of enquiries) and not one (and not two or three.... ) year ... But I personally do not know how to automate my trading - I've made an indicator, which is probably the best of what is after the fractals (and in fact it's forrathals) have analyzed hundreds if not thousands of crap and looking at what everyone is looking for without understanding what they need - trying to figure out and explain even someone that in order to look one should understand what exactly should be found. In this topic formulated a clear criterion - which can quickly and objectively reject (without wasting time and money) any crap like the amount of next wave or some inferior filter ... And before that in other topic I have offered a criterion for evaluation of TC itself, comparing it with some reference ETS. And still 99% of it is not read or read diagonally and end up with rubbish (Leo does not count - it's like we joke with him this way) ... So don't take these answers to heart - I have the impression that almost everyone here (and everywhere else) trading is just a hobby. And there is a corresponding attitude - like "no and don't need it". If we want it to be more than a hobby we have to be serious about it, dedicate all our free time to it. In order to understand "how it works" one must first learn to trade with one's hands, not for a month or two or three months but for one year as a minimum, and set a goal: as long as I earn so much on the demo, I won't go to the real one. And then the demo money will become almost real. But it seems that only 20 percent have listened.
But the point is - according to your post - there is an indicator for the eye - and there is one for the computer - for the eye it is one good and not suitable for the computer. So I'm talking about the ones for the computer.
ну вот возьмем жизненную ситуацию - едем на машине и нам мигают встречные - смотрим на спидометр и если больше положенного снижаем скорость. Есть несколько индикаторов: спидометр, подмигивание встречной машины, знак ограничения скорости и т.д. Но по отдельности они необязательно должны приводить к тем же действиям. Если встречная машина мигает, возможно она просит уступить кого-то дорогу, или это ваш знакомый проехал. Да и спидометр м.б. использован в разных ситуациях по разному. Т.е. отдельно сами они могут и не давать сигнал для действия, поэтому и оценивать отдельно их не имеет смысла. Точнее оценка будет не совсем адекватной, а относительно способов их использования
I have a two-layer indicator scheme: (1) "primary indicators" - thermometers, speedometers, gauges and other gauges (2) "oracles" - first level indicator analysers/transformers which give signals in terms of the recommended market position.