New trends in technical analysis. - page 13

New comment
 

the frequency is more of a difference between High and Low... everything else depends on the timeframe.... which is inherently wrong...

(respectively High and Low between adjacent values, which unfortunately is again time dependent...:-(((

 
still can't figure out how to squeeze my formula into a non-tick chart...
 
khorosh:

Or you can take a publicly available indicator without using mysterious quantum frequencies and obtain this balance curve for the period 08.08.08 to today.




Well, you can do it in different ways

 
barli:


Well, there are different ways to go about it

You have an averaging martin. I think you can only get such results on a short time frame. On an interval of 1 year or more you will probably lose money.
 
barli:


Well, there are different ways to go about it.

You have the wrong thread.

Martingale with a lot spread from 0.10 to 12.80 over a two week range is not a new trend in TA.

..............

to khorosh Yuri, don't take the branch into the darkness of martingale

 
you are messing with frequencies )))), what is frequency 257? how do i touch it in my metatrader? =)
 
lasso:

to khorosh Yuri, don't take the branch into the darkness of Martingale

I was only slightly criticising barli's expert, like you .)))
 
khorosh:
I was only slightly criticising barli's expert like you .)))


Then I don't understand the point of your request...

khorosh:

And without any cunning and mysterious quantum frequencies one can take a publicly available indicator and get such a balance curve for the period from 08.08.08 till today.

The topikstarter is unlikely to be able to provide such a curve.

He doesn't need it.... )

 
khorosh:
You have an averaging martin. I think you can only get results like that on a short time frame. On an interval of 1 year or more you will probably lose money.


Catch for a year :)

 
lasso:


Then I don't understand the point of your request...

The topicstarter is unlikely to be able to provide such a curve.

He doesn't need to.... )

You have misunderstood. This is not a request. I showed the results of my last expert. I wanted to say that you don't need to bother with quantum frequencies, you can get good results without them.))
1...6789101112131415161718
New comment