Market phenomena - page 19
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
Oh, what a phenomenal booger.
As promised - I modelled it on a random series. In Excel + VB. Trailer is in the trailer.
"Nailed returnees" are returnees run through a sigmoid function. And then chopped by themselves.
I also like this kind of toy ;)
Especially when the control parameter is hidden deeper ;)
.
.
.
.
The next step is to set the cyclicality of the variation itself. The next step is to set the cyclicality of the variation itself. And so on ...
Developmental toys ;)))
ps.
I specially draw attention to the fact that the basis is a random rnd
got my "magic blots" out of the stash http://imglink.ru/pictures/08-07-11/6cfc9d1ddd356b2bbef263e32d4cf3c0.jpg
the yellow lines are future price consolidation levels, but when the price will be there and in what sequence the trajectory will be, I cannot even guess
Oh, that's phenomenal.
As promised - I modelled it on a random series. In excel + vb. Trailer is in the trailer.
"Nailed returnees" are returnees run through a sigmoid function. And then chopped by themselves.
So I don't understand, is this a combination of two histograms with different pitches? And the picture illustrates that the interference effects are much weaker than expected?
P.S. Gentlemen, can you stop pretending that you've never seen a normal article at all? :). I mean that long yarns of pictures and / or formulas need at least some abstracts, I wanted this and that, and I got this and that. That's a bump in the avtomat's road, too.
Candid:
...My point is that long binders of pictures and/or formulas need at least some abstracts, I wanted this and that, and I managed to get this and that. That's a pebble inavtomat's garden as well.
It was a fair pebble, I wanted to throw myself. In general, what is the manner, write a bunch of formulas in an incomprehensible language, add to this mess incomprehensible images, and at the end of the post sign smiling smiley ...
Putting a smiley face. :)
specifically pointing out that it is based on a random rnd
So what? These toys can be played for the rest of your life, the question of where the dough is, is probably not very relevant.
1. So I don't understand, are these two histograms combined with different pitches? And the picture illustrates that the interference effects are much weaker than expected?
2. P.S. Gentlemen, can you stop pretending that you've never seen a normal article at all? :). I mean that long drawings and / or formulas need at least some abstracts, I wanted so-and-so and I got so-and-so. This is a penny for avtomat as well.
1. Not really. The histogram is the same in both cases, but the data
In the first case (1) are normalized (rounding to 4 digits after the point), and the statistical step is not the same (and not a multiple of) the normalization step. The interference is pronounced enough to be detected.
In the second case (2), the generated series of "returnees" after normalization was further transformed by the function y=x/(1+abs(x)). This changed the interference picture, but it is still clearly present.
Actually, the goal was achieved - the nature of the phenomenon described by the topicstarter in the first lines of the topic was demonstrated. In particular, its non-market origin.
2. Well, I'm ready to take it personally, too. If you still have questions on my demo - ask, I will answer and show you what is in the code (if necessary).
1. Not really. The histogram is the same in both cases, but the data
in the first case (1) are normalised (rounding to 4 digits after the point), and the statistical collection step is not the same as (and not a multiple of) the normalisation step. The interference is pronounced enough to be detected.
In the second case (2), the generated series of "returnees" after normalization was further transformed by the function y=x/(1+abs(x)). This changed the interference picture, but it is still clearly present.
Actually, the goal was achieved - the nature of the phenomenon described by the topicstarter in the first lines of the topic was demonstrated. In particular, its non-market origin.
2. Well, I'm willing to take it personally, too. If you still have questions on my demo - ask, I will answer and show you what is in the code (if necessary).
Thank you, I see. I would only specify that the phenomenon may well be non-market, the fact that it is such can be demonstrated only with the same data that were with the topicstarter.
Something since morning the pity has flared up :), I myself above convinced that the bar graphs as a way to obtain the phenomenon better to forget, at least for now.
That's a bump in the road for avtomat, too...
I thought it was pretty clear... especially since it was just a rejoinder, not an article...
OK, I won't do it again.
1. Thank you, I see. I would only clarify, it has been demonstrated that the phenomenon may well be non-market, the fact that it is so can only be demonstrated using the same data as the topicstarter had.
2. Something since morning pest was playing out :), I myself above convinced that the bar graphs as a way to obtain the phenomenon better to forget, at least for now.
1. Well I agree. It's just that in this case we have to admit that no phenomenon has been shown yet. Only vows. And the presented demonstration material is incorrect.
2. :) There is no need to forget. If the sampling rate when collecting statistics is a multiple of the sampling rate of the input data, you can also die, there will be no glitches.