What is everyone looking for? - page 30
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
Well, brother, you're forcing the issue of flubbing in your thread. The unbiased reader will be surprised to find that the two parts of your post differ only in who the actions in question come from. 'They' have 'cheesy banter' and 'I try'. Like, their spies are spies and our spies are spies.
When you brush it off, keep in mind that I have no personal interest, as I took no one's side in your arguments.
Here we go again with the stereotypes - I was in charge of arrogance. And that's what the conversation is about. I'm trying - I'm not referring to "cheesy banter" but attitude. It's the active and passive attitude that counts. As for waving it off - what the hell for. Yes, I personally in a similar way entertained - only in alaverdy - and when there is time. :) There's nothing else for me to do - :))
I'm never a bully - I only reply. :))
*** Have there been any arguments? Haven't noticed. :) I don't think there's been an argument yet, alas. :)
For any set of reversal trade signals, it is easy to construct a ZZ simply by finding highs and lows between the reversal points. It is obvious (to me, at least) that this very ZZ would be an ideal for a given set of signals. That is, every time we may be talking about... er ... finger of the same particular beast.
Yes - that's essentially what it is - you take a ZZ and use it to build the "ideal" signals. Then the indicator is taken and the real signals are plotted on it - the signals are fed to the input SS1 and the two reports are compared. Well, at least this way you can assess. And so the bread
It's been said a hundred times. "Perfect Indicator" and so on.
Enthusiasts, man...
What exactly has suddenly become clear? ;)
Not so much, joo. Just because I cussed doesn't mean that S got me in any way. It's just a word of mouth.
And the question was actually for MD. Now it's on to Candid as well.
Obviously, the efficiency of the two-machine system is no match for the ZZ-ideal. I'm afraid no real system will provide that at all. I keep trying to push the idea that the ideal itself should be built with the specifics of the iTS ("vehicle under study") in mind.
Or try to evaluate the system as I suggested earlier - through the quality of entry and quality of exit for each position and then the overall quality of the whole system. But there is no need to construct an ideal either: it is kind of self-evident and fully corresponds to the ITS itself.
Not so much, joo. Just because I cursed doesn't mean that S hurt me in any way. It's just a word of mouth.
And the question was actually for MD. And now Candid.
Obviously, the effectiveness of the two-machine system cannot be compared with the ZZ-ideal. I'm afraid no real system will provide that at all. I keep trying to push the idea that the ideal itself should be built with the specifics of the andTS ("the TS under investigation") in mind.
Or try to evaluate the system as I suggested earlier - through the quality of input and quality of output for each position and then the general quality of the whole system. But there is no need to build an ideal: it is sort of self-evident and fully corresponds to the TS itself.
TS and signals. We need to separate the signals from the TS. Or if it is not possible to demonstrate somehow that it is so.
Да и сам-то вопрос был, собственно, к MD. Ну вот теперь еще и к Candid'у.
1) Понятно, что эффективность системы "две машки" не идет ни в какое сравнение с ЗЗ-идеалом. Боюсь, вообще никакая реальная система этого не обеспечит. Я все время пытаюсь протолкнуть идею о том, что сам идеал должен строиться с учетом специфики иТС.
2) Или пытаться оценивать систему так, как я предложил ранее, - через качество входа и качество выхода каждой позиции и затем уже общее качество всей системы. Но тут и идеал не нужно строить: он как бы виден сам собой и полностью соответствует самой иТС.
1) There is no problem here. As for the construction of the (indicator) ideal for your TS - it is an individual matter, and depends on the TS.
This is not rather a comparison of indicators, but a comparison of series of trade transactions generated by the ideal and the TS under test.
2) It's a matter of taste - evaluate it any way you want. Another matter is the creation of a "universal" test. For rough estimations of system efficiency.
According to the condition of the problem, the test should show the real/ideal ratio. Hence there is a theoretical ideal of a number of transactions in the form of the ZigZag vertices.
Тут речь скорее не о сравнении индикаторов, а о сравнении рядов торговых транзакций генерируемых идеальной и тестируемой ТС.
This is where the problem lies. In an ideal TS there are 1,000 transactions, in real life there are 1,400. How do you compare series of transactions with different numbers? Not to mention the fact that the inputs/outputs of the ideal TS do not correspond to those of the ITS.
it is possible to compare the results of a system (out of sampler) with the results of the same system but optimised in this area.
Высокомерие, у меня от сутствуют как класс ...
не очень хорошо отношусь к людям которые "тролят" и пример тому - например убогий стеб над Неветераном, или не менее убогий над Лавиной. ....
Ему можно указать на его ошибки, можно поправить, можно посоветовать что-то. ......
Yep. The thief's hat is on fire. The criminal always HAS to turn himself in. With words. Because any criminal always knows what crime he is committing. That's what the whole Columbo series is based on.
SProgrammer is simply and bluntly heading a paid group of trolls here, burying the forum. Neveteran, who also makes a lot of mistakes in Russian, is a part of this group.
You see, the FireFox browser *doesn't* allow you to make so many mistakes, it has a built-in Russian text checker that underlines any erroneous word in red. But SProgrammer and Neveteran don't use FireFox.
And who in 2010 do not use FireFox, but uses IE ...? That's right: suckers and ..... who else? (they are obviously not suckers and SProgrammer is also a "security expert") .... Right-right.....
....SOCIALS OF BIG CORPORATIONS - because it's the company's policy there. Because in large corporations they cannot give up fucking IE, because they have too many forms and charts for it on ActiveX and links with corporate databases.
So the trolls from the big corporation SProgrammer and Neveteran write here on the forum - from under IE - with a wild amount of bugs. Because at the headquarters of the BIG CORPORATION on the banks of the Hudson, the Russian language sucks.