What is everyone looking for? - page 12
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
... я вот торгую руками - у меня в среднем 98-97% процентов сделок закрывается успешно, того что я зарабатываю, мне хвататет на жизнь и на конфеты по весьма высокому уровню запростов...
Why don't you send me 100WMZ? Then I'll participate in all your threads. It's not expensive at all.
Let's take a life situation - we are driving a car and we see oncoming traffic blinking - we look at the speedometer and if it exceeds the limit, we reduce the speed. There are several indicators: speedometer, winking of an oncoming car, speed limit sign etc. But individually they do not necessarily lead to the same action. If the oncoming car is flashing, it may be asking someone to give way, or someone you know has passed. And the speedometer may be used differently in different situations. I.e. separately they may not give a signal for action, therefore it makes no sense to evaluate them separately. More accurately, the evaluation will not be quite adequate, but relative to the way they are used
Imagine that you have 100 light bulbs - each one doesn't lie on one occasion out of a hundred readings. If you analyse them all at the same time, what do you think would be the reliability of such a cumulative indicator?
Generally 1 in 100. But if you take into account that if 1 out of 100 lies, then betting on the opposite event under certain conditions may be 99 out of 100, then dunno :)
1 in 100 at all. But considering that if 1 out of 100 lies, betting on the opposite event under certain conditions might be 99 out of 100, then dunno :)
And you make conclusions with use of the same indicators, which show something unknown.It's all actually counting at primary school level - remember the coin. :)
So you're jumping to conclusions based on the same unknown indicators.
It's all actually counting at primary school level - remember the coin. :)
So you're jumping to conclusions based on the same unknown indicators.It's all actually counting at primary school level - remember the coin. :)
Conclusions are based on statistics only. There is a hypothesis - either it is confirmed by statistics, or it is refuted. Then you can generalise, analyse, meditate to set new, more correct hypotheses. At the end there will be a profit :)
1-0.99^49 I think. But I'm not sure, as I've already had a drink.)) What does this problem have to do with it?This problem shows that one reliable indicator is more important than 1000 unreliable ones. :)
Эта задача показывает что один достоверный индикатор важнее 1000 не достоверных. :)
Don't embarrass yourself, Programmer :) https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/123519/page324#298038
Представьте себе что у вас есть 100 лампочек-сигналов - каждый не врет в одном случает из ста полказаний. Если проанализировать их всех одновременно то по вашему какова будет достоверность такого кумулятиваного индикатора?
There was a thread about this as well. A fake problem statement.
The problem is that these light bulbs-signals will be dependent. And even if you put a million of them, not 100, still the reliability of complex prediction for a given correlation of bulb signals will be limited and will not be as close to 1.
There was a thread about this as well. False staging hadachi.
The problem is that these bulb signals will be dependent. And even if you put a million of them instead of 100, still the reliability of complex prediction for a given correlation of bulb signals will be limited and will not be as close to 1.
M is always objective, which I respect! :)