Market phenomena - page 47

New comment
 
Here I am not clear what can be counted here. I need to buy 200 contracts on the market: 100 I bought for 18,000 rubles (1 tick), 50 I bought for 18,003 rubles (2 tick), 50 I bought for 18,004 (3 tick). Obviously the 3 tick is dependent on the second tick and the second on the first. I think that's what they call repeatability or AR effects or whatever, but it's so obvious and simple!
 
Mathemat:

I'm not worried, my complaints do not apply to you. If you don't like this thread because of its scientific prowess, don't come here, just go away. Live in your real world and do not get bogged down by the thoughts of local "geeks".

I am not against science. I am against the detachment of science from the phenomena taking place. Often the members of this forum, for example Yusuf, come up with some abstruse theory and try to pull the market over it. On the contrary: we should give explanations for the phenomena seen, but this approach is not enough here on the forum.

s.s. Apparently this is what Uncle Fedor meant when he compared Yusuf with faa1947.

to:Farnsworth I beg you very much, stop writing foul language on the walls of this forum. You are an old, respected man and yet you behave inappropriately like a troubled teenager from a family of drunks. I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean to, I have no desire to insult anyone participating in this forum, including you, I hope you will be sympathetic to criticism and become smarter, better, kinder.

 
C-4:
I am not against science. I am against the detachment of science from the phenomena taking place. Often members of this forum, such as Yusuf, come up with some abstruse theory and try to pull the market over it. On the contrary: we should give explanations for the phenomena we see, but this approach is not enough here on the forum.

And how should "we explain the phenomena we see" in any other way than by means of a theory? On the fingers?
 
yosuf:
And how are "we supposed to give explanations for the phenomena we see" other than through some theory? On your fingers?

Now elaborate: what phenomena? The law of supply and demand? How do you understand it? How does formula 18 confirm this law? I, for example, see that the price does not correspond to your 18 even visually. What kind of reasonable application can we talk about then?
 
C-4:
Here I am not clear what can be counted here. I need to buy 200 contracts on the market: 100 I bought for 18,000 rubles (1 tick), 50 I bought for 18,003 rubles (2 tick), 50 I bought for 18,004 (3 tick). Obviously the 3 tick is dependent on the second tick and the second on the first. I think that's what they call repeatability or AR effects or whatever, but it's so obvious and simple!
Apart from that, there's another interesting phenomenon, regulators. A third market participant. As a matter of fact (in some markets), it is because of his actions that the situation on the ticks looks like a very pointed distribution. There's a lot of stuff there, and it's all very far from the "mass of small independent homogeneous factors", the action of which leads, theoretically, to the normality of distributions.
 
Mathemat:

In Yusuf's thread, such comments are quite adequate, but not here. I don't understand how you can talk about independence if you can't even measure it. If independence were "simple here", there would be no market conundrum.

These comments in no thread can be adequate because they are boorish themselves regardless of the delivery address. Farnsworth is no better/smarter than Yusuf. Both old geezers deserve respect and leniency, or at least objectivity, which you respected Alexei clearly lack with respect to Yusuf.
 
yosuf:
And how do "we have to give explanations for the phenomena we see" other than through some theory? On the fingers?

That's not the point. The point is that pulling a theory over an octopus is strange.

There is what there is. What is there? A set of contexts (c))) with its own rules of the trade. The art of TA ownership is the ability to recognise these contexts. Trying to analyse a range is moronic. How to pair warm and round, like table and crow, etc.

It's only worth analysing (that's what I think - m'pardon!) the scrolls between states. And it's not a framed by t series. But here dumb analysis a la Serge is totally unsuitable. But if he likes it... )))

 
HideYourRichess:
Apart from that, there is another interesting phenomenon, the regulators. A third market participant. As a matter of fact (in some markets), it is because of its actions that the situation on the ticks looks like a very pointed distribution. There's a lot of stuff there, and it's all very far from a "mass of small independent homogenous factors".

So it must be taken as a given and work with those methods of analysis which are not critical to the normality of the studied series. The problem is not that the market does not fit the methods, the problem is that the methods do not fit the market.
 
C-4:


The problem is not that the market does not match the methods. The problem is that the methods do not match the market.

The only sensible thought in the whole thread.
 
C-4: Often members of this forum, for example the same Yusuf [...] Obviously the 3rd tick is dependent on the second and the second on the first. I think that's what they call repeatability or AR effects or whatever, but it's so obvious and simple!

Yusuf is an accident in this thread altogether, as he is obsessed with his genius (18).

There is nothing obvious that allows you to just make money on the market. Don't make foolish youngsters out of the participants of this thread.

HideYourRichess: Where is the progress? Don't all these years, all this titanic but inconclusive research, lead you to believe that there is something wrong with your approach to the problem.

And why do you already think there is no progress? Just because there are no stats being thrown around here?

HideYourRichess: The market process has its own structure, there are rules and so on. It should be obvious.

What exactly is the structure? You came here to say that the Sun goes around the Earth, because it's obvious? Why are you saying that?

1...404142434445464748495051525354...75
New comment