The fight against PYTHIA 8 has come down to a dumb formula... - page 5
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
do you have any other secret information...?...(unless you mean fundamental analysis and insider trading...?)
the whole fleet of developments works only for OHLCV....
(I, for example, am ill-informed about large pension funds entering the market...then just catch fish...:-)))
do you have any other secret information...?...(unless you mean fundamental analysis and insider trading...?...)
I have a lot of secret information, I've been collecting it for a long time and I'm still collecting it :o)
the entire fleet of developments works only on OHLCV...
wrote specifically. I don't think your formula will work. You see, there is no basis for it to work. I suppose 80% of the "hits" are a bit illusory. But that doesn't stop me from wishing you luck :o)
(I, for example, am unaware of large pension funds entering the market ... just catch fish ... :-))
They all need an eye on them. If you hesitate to do so, you're screwed.
PS: You never told me what exactly was modeled in this mysterious program. It's very specific. It simulates all sorts of collisions, like this:
that sort of picks up all sorts of detectors like this.
I think I understand now - that's what your topic is called, "fighting pythia..." :o)
zoritch, tell me something about magnetars. I can't find anything popular, but I'm really hooked. Something totally unbelievable when looking at energy densities and their corresponding mass densities...
Sergei Popov is the best specialist at the moment....look for magnetar popov...
the man, as the president's science aide, is very difficult...:-))) but he is an excellent specialist...
i don't know...well here http://physics-animations.com/jrnboard/themes/11.html
http://xray.sai.msu.ru/~polar/html/sci.html
actually you should check out his blog on GASI...
http://sergepolar.livejournal.com/
https://profiles.google.com/105906797245451251248/buzz
still at the level of c. science you can explain all black-hole phenomena in terms of pulsars-magnetars....
exactly he is a fan and supporter of this theory...but a competent one...
(it's about where to dig...naturally neither tape.ru...nor membrane...nor even the elements will help much in this...:-))
I have a lot of classified information, I've been collecting it for a long time and I'm still collecting it :o)
wrote specifically. I don't think your formula will work. You see, there is no basis for it to work. I suppose 80% of the "hits" are a bit illusory. But that doesn't stop me from wishing you luck :o)
You have to keep an eye on them. The slightest hesitation and all is lost.
PS: You still haven't told me what exactly was modeled in this mysterious program. It's very specific. It simulates all sorts of collisions, like this:
that sort of picks up all sorts of detectors like this.
I think I understand now - that's what your topic is called, "fighting pythia..." :o)
http://elementy.ru/lib/430431#millions
http://igorivanov.blogspot.com/2009/01/blog-post.html
in a typical hadronic jet it is only possible to distinguish correlations after distributed (cerne even weak) network processing...
i.e. the statistics accumulated a couple of years ago have not yet been processed (not meaning highly correlated events, the noise about which usually turned out to be just fiction :-)))
... all will be well, as my wife likes to say ... :-))) my earnings of a billion, of course, does not mean anything against that background, but
a drop sharpens a stone... roughly can be seen as a head-on collision of bulls and bears and outside observation of the results ...
(and of course the time factor comes into play...http://elementy.ru/lib/430939?context=3096582)
Yeah, thanks.
Hello. I am, alas, far from physics or mathematics. Built a little test that uses the formula you discovered to determine a prediction. I ended up with about 50% correct. Maybe I didn't really understand the conditions under which you got the results.
So, the indicator generates only positive values and positive and negative values (there is no bracket in the initial formula). We have two bars (candles) and two values obtained by your formula. Let's call the bar the older one Candle[1] and the bar just formed Candle[0].
Accordingly the data of your formula will be Pyth[1] and Pyth[0].
So, my understanding is that:
If Candle[1] was higher than Candle[0] (i.e. we are sort of falling) and Pyth[1] > Pyth[0] then the trend/decline is expected to continue.
If you are rising and the condition Pyth[1] > Pyth[0] persists, then, again, we expect the trend to continue.
Conditions where Pyth[1] < Pyth[0] are not considered at all.
I sense that something is wrong. ) What is it? )))
Sergei Popov is the best specialist at the moment...look for magnetar popov...
the man, as the president's science aide, is very difficult...:-))) but he is an excellent specialist...
i don't know...well here http://physics-animations.com/jrnboard/themes/11.html
http://xray.sai.msu.ru/~polar/html/sci.html
actually you should check out his blog on GASI...
http://sergepolar.livejournal.com/
https://profiles.google.com/105906797245451251248/buzz
still at the level of c. science you can explain all black-hole phenomena in terms of pulsars-magnetars....
exactly he is a fan and supporter of this theory...but a competent one...
(it's about where to dig...naturally neither tape.ru...nor membrane...nor even the elements will help much in this...:-)))
that's all great. That's not what I was asking about. The program has specific requirements for the input data. I was just wondering "what you have what". Although, okay, s.s.n. Let it remain an inscrutable mystery to me. If Yurixx were here, he would explain.
PS: Assuming the non-stationarity of quoting processes (which it is), your billion won't help you. The number of samples has no effect on the results of the statistical assumptions. They will still be wrong. And if the model is not very adequate, then billions of Monte Carlo experiments will not help. But this is my way of encouraging you. :о)