Why is it that when TC becomes obvious to most market participants it stops working? - page 6
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
+100!!!
Thank you, it made a lot of sense to me!
Yura, I'll give you a substantive answer. Later, OK?
Uh-huh. If everyone started riding bicycles, the gyroscopic effect would disappear. Yuri, the market is a perfect system. It does not depend on how it is used, but on its own nature.
There are completely objective things. By the way, are there everlasting TS? Yes - there are, but with such profits that it is better to sing songs in the subway.
The market is all about information and patterns. Where there are priorities for information or patterns, the TS does not stop working. We work in an environment where there is no monopoly. Even if someone has primary information or knowledge of patterns, they cannot keep it secret. Where you've been, what you've seen, you can tell them yourself. And then it gets to the operators, who start exploiting it, each in his own way. The resource is one, common, and it is not possible to develop it indefinitely. By their actions, they just create such noise that they cannot see the primary impact, though it is preserved. On each primary impact hangs a hundred strategies, each with a different capital, and in different directions. And behind this mishmash you can't make out anything.
It's not a trader's business to make theories and facts :)
Uh-huh. If everyone starts riding bicycles, the gyroscopic effect will disappear. Yuri, the market is a perfect system. It does not depend on how it is used, but on its own nature.
There are completely objective things. By the way, are there everlasting TS? Yes - there are, but with such profits that it's better to sing songs in the subway.
Is that all, Peter? Not much.
The so-called gyroscopic effect is a manifestation of the law of conservation of momentum. From my point of view, Newton's laws of progressive motion have more to do with cycling than rotational motion. But it doesn't matter. Both are universal laws of Nature. It is their presence that makes our world perfect - here I absolutely agree with you. However, your appeal to the market's own nature and hence to the laws of its existence, those very objective laws, looks somewhat abstract until you declare what this nature of the market is, what objective laws it obeys, what their content is and why they do not depend on human activity.
You will agree that a primitive materialist, who knows practically nothing about the world yet, when he sees a person riding a bicycle by inertia (i.e. without even turning the pedals), will have only one way to explain this phenomenon - to say that there are laws of nature that govern this phenomenon. And the same primitive idealist would have a different answer to this - it is the will of God. What's the difference? There is no difference. Both answers are meaningless. I.e. indicate the actual absence of knowledge, but the presence of belief that an explanation (or reason) exists.
So it is with your answer. If you cannot reveal the nature of the market and the laws of its functioning, then there remains only the belief in nature, perfection and objectivity. Which in and of itself gives you nothing. Why? Because the perfection of the market is not expressed in the fact that it does not change under any human action, but that it changes very quickly and flexibly, preserving its nature and devaluing through its changes people's attempts to bring predetermination to the market. That is why any TS will only be effective as long as its impact on the market does not go beyond the random and insignificant. That is, as long as a small number of people use it and operate in small volumes.
Is that all, Peter? Not much.
The so-called gyroscopic effect is a manifestation of the law of conservation of momentum. From my point of view, Newton's laws of progressive motion have more to do with cycling than rotational motion. But it doesn't matter. Both are universal laws of Nature. It is their presence that makes our world perfect - here I absolutely agree with you. However, your appeal to the market's own nature and hence to the laws of its existence, those very objective laws, looks somewhat abstract until you declare what this nature of the market is, what objective laws it obeys, what their content is and why they do not depend on human activity.
You must agree that a primitive materialist, who knows practically nothing about the world yet, when he sees a person riding a bicycle by inertia (i.e. without even turning the pedals), will have only one way to explain this phenomenon - to say that there are laws of nature that govern this phenomenon. And the same primitive idealist would have a different answer to this - it is the will of God. What's the difference? There is no difference. Both answers are meaningless. I.e. indicate the actual absence of knowledge, but the presence of belief that an explanation (or reason) exists.
So it is with your answer. If you cannot reveal the nature of the market and the laws of its functioning, then there remains only the belief in nature, perfection and objectivity. Which in and of itself gives you nothing. Why? Because the perfection of the market is not expressed in the fact that it does not change under any human action, but that it changes very quickly and flexibly, preserving its nature and devaluing through its changes people's attempts to bring predetermination to the market. That is why any TS will only be effective as long as its impact on the market does not go beyond the random and insignificant. That is, as long as it is used by a small number of people and operated by small volumes.
Lapidary is my thirty-third name...))
Yura, you are talking nonsense. I mean "That's why any TS will be effective only as long as its effect on the market is not more than random and insignificant. That is, as long as it's used by a small number of people and operated by small volumes."\
Are you asking for an argument? Call me a religious fanatic but I am too lazy to give them. The way you're describing doesn't happen EVER.
===
Oh, man. Wake up! Can you look at a chart and say: here is where Appel came up with MACD, and here is where Lane came up with Stochastic. And here.... right there - I see - Bill Williams published his Chaos.
The market as it was by nature has remained so. Yes, liquidity has increased. Feedback time has shortened. But in general - nothing fundamental has changed.
===
On the arguments. How many times do I need to write that TC with this or that method works the same on the post and pre period relative to the date of method fame? I understand that no one here reads anyone - that's why I repeat myself. I have long been disappointed in the main attribute of human nature - sanity... Your Piglet is no exception.
You may reason as you wish - but there is a FACT.