Is any prediction doomed? - page 11
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
This is a very narrow and incorrect interpretation of the concept of regularity.
The main thing in a pattern is to understand that there are causes and there are effects. We did not talk about 100% or any other figures at all.
In forecasting, too, "there are causes and there are effects".
And here is a pattern below 100% realisation - representations in the brains of the peeple that there is no truth and there cannot be.
It's only from a lack of understanding so. What are your predictions about price increases based on? The colour of the car pulling up to the intersection?
That's me trying to speak your language.
"Generally speaking, forecasting in the financial markets is useless. Only the search for patterns....." - I do not understand this phrase at all. Isn't the forecasting based on finding and exploiting the patterns found?
Then what is it based on?
What can forecasting be based on if not some kind of pattern???
Question. It determines the methods of cognition used in all scientific fields! Please answer and revolutionize the science of knowledge
In prognosis too, "there are causes and there are effects".
But the pattern below 100% realisation is our legal system and the perceptions in the brains of the peeple that there is no truth and there cannot be.
What can forecasting be based on if not some kind of pattern???
Question. It determines the cognitive methods used in all scientific fields! Please answer and revolutionize the science of cognition!
As it was already noted here people can make predictions (they can but it is not a fact that their predictions have any value) and on the basis of omens. In fact all of them are like that, 90-95% if we speak about clients of brokerage companies.
And why do you need scientific methods of knowledge, if elementary definitions are not all clear?
As already noted, people can make predictions (they can, but it's not a fact that their predictions have any value) and based on guesswork. In fact, all the plunderers are like that, 90-95% if we talk about clients of DTs.
And why do you need scientific methods of knowledge if elementary definitions are not clear?
Everything is clear with the definitions. It's not TA, it's clear to the whole world what "prediction" is and you don't have to make anything up.
I do not understand another part - division and contrast of "predicting" and "searching for patterns". What the prediction can be based on if not on the patterns found?
Why do you need the patterns found, if you cannot make a price trend prediction based on them?
Some very childish ideas about the legal system. It's when people think that their ideas about life are the Truth binding on everyone.
Harry Truman.
Why? If there is a single predictive profitable TS, then it is not doomed.
Otherwisewe're about to have a 120-page conversation about "What is 'forecasting '?
And I warned you!
And I warned!
Regularity and prediction are inseparable concepts.
There is nothing to prove.
Someone wants to put the last word in the conversation, let him or her do so.
And it (at the risk of making a prediction) will appear now.
Or will the pattern work?
Here is the "last" word)
I have come to the conclusion that predicting/exposing a pattern on a single instrument is a fiction/self-deception, especially if based on analysis of previous data.
Predicting the behaviour of multiple instruments also lacks sufficient justification. As ALL pairs move with correlation, if at all, comparable to the level of noise.
Conclusion: trade only arbitrage situations...