Market phenomena - 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
It also appears on M1 (different classification), I did not look at ticks, I do not like to work with them on forex, they lie a lot.
So are we gonna bury our tomahawks in the ground? Or are you going to keep jumping around the fire with a loincloth and a stick, shaking the air? Spiderkas, I'm offering you peace. You're welcome to it. I will even meet you halfway - everything works for you and the fact that you are not yet on the front pages of Forbes is a misunderstanding.
Yeah, you'll also say that bread isn't a profitable business because there isn't a single baker in Forbes.
Let's get to the heart of the matter. So what, in a nutshell, is the phenomenon?
Boy in shorts, I wish you did not spend all your mum's money on wave analysis, which you do not seem to understand so much. You write more, you don't need to draw.
Thanks....)))) Really beautiful....)))
You will forgive me if I have unwittingly caused your irritation and resentment. I didn't mean to. By revelation, I meant, a method distinguishable from TA, something new, not like the usual methods of analysis. In the phrase "By the wings and on the ground ..." I meant the misunderstanding of you by others. Sorry again.
The phenomenon of holes in the histograms, it is present in non-market data as well.
The process is the process, it is exactly as we see it in the MT terminals. It is what we work with and what we earn from. It must be accepted as such, it is a given. Generally speaking, these are not "holes" in the bar chart - they are "filled in", they just do not fit in the usual framework. And is it the right frame? What if it's really two discrete distributions, with thinned out areas? I for one don't know, I'm stopping for now and drawing no conclusions.
Yeah, you'll also say that bread isn't a profitable business because there isn't a single baker in Forbes.
no bakers? you're wrong :o)
Let's get to the point. So what's the fenomenon in a nutshell?
read post 3.
Thanks....)))) Really beautiful....)))
You will forgive me if I have unwittingly caused your irritation and displeasure. I didn't mean to. By revelation, I meant, a method distinguishable from TA, something new, not like the usual methods of analysis. In the phrase "By the wings and on the ground ..." I meant the misunderstanding of you by others. Sorry again.
It's all right. I'm in combat mode here. And I'm sorry for being rude.
Everything we believe in works. We just don't need to lose faith. :о))) And no matter what it is TA, VA, squares,even magic blots, they are the coolest...
The process is the process, it is exactly as we see it in the MT terminals. It is what we work with and what we earn from. It must be accepted as such, it is a given. Generally speaking, these are not "holes" in the bar chart - they are "filled in", they just do not fit in the usual framework. And is it the right frame? What if it's really two discrete distributions, with thinned out areas? I, for example, don't know; I'm stopping for now, I'm not drawing any conclusions.
I see that we have different concepts of processes, so let's not talk about that. Let's talk about methodology. The question is a matter of discrete distributions of what? i.e. you first have to understand what you're looking for, and then look for it. In this case, the cart before the horse.
On the other hand, phenomena are the cart before the horse.Farnsworth:
I've encountered this "thinning" phenomenon when dabbling with changing the distribution of increments and candle sizes. At first I thought it was just the effects of my transformations, but now I don't think so, and in a way I'm as surprised as you are. I suppose no transformation of candlesticks was done before the histogram was drawn?
Maybe you are right, not so long ago I studied fractal properties of the market, got some Cantor's ladder from BP and believed that it works and it really works :D I don't believe that Fibs work, but somehow one can always find a fractal with 38.2 or 61.8 level up to it
The quote is far from a self-similar fractal, it is a very complex stochastic multifractal with self-similarity in the statistical sense and that on a very "narrow" scale. I.e., its trajectory is such that if you want, you will find any "levels" on quotients and be surprised by this magic :o)