Dependency statistics in quotes (information theory, correlation and other feature selection methods) - page 65
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
Vladimir? Have I offended you in any way? )))
Offtopic deleted (including my comment).
Why? I didn't seem to offend you either.
and I thought - no reason. then it's futile to say so.
there are several works like this on repeat, and it's not bullshit.
and I thought - no reason. then it's futile to say so.
there are several works like this on repeat, and it's not bullshit.
Vadim, that's not the point. Even if it's not bullshit. Well, it's not serious...
What was the loss of equity at such crazy entries when the movement of less than 100 pips against the position could practically destroy the deposit? Or all the positions became profitable at once (not counting the minus of equity spread at opening)?
Without monitoring - nonsense. Sorry, but it is.
no question, yes, I understand.
Then let me be clear:
a fact only if by monitoring, there is some kind of purpose associated with monitoring.
I have a purpose in trading, everything else is bollocks and is, including all games in size, near the market.
for this kind of bullshit (that's why I reacted when I read it), try, for personal or sporting interest, to swing a start-up account from 30 to 50 quid, with a start-up deposit for a single transaction, with the size of knowingly more than half the specified amount. and by the way, for such jobs, accounts are deliberately not cent accounts, for clarity. i have not listed all the conditions actually pursued in that job, which arose replica.
Perhaps then the excessive sympathy for the tester, will gradually disappear, but the understanding of the non-randomness of events, only to be restored, in one way or another.
no question, yes, I understand.
Then let me be clear:
a fact only if by monitoring, there is some kind of purpose associated with monitoring.
I have a purpose in trading, everything else is bollocks and is, including all games in size, near the market.
for this kind of bullshit (that's why I reacted when I read it), try, for personal or sporting interest, to swing a start-up account from 30 to 50 quid, with a start-up deposit for a single transaction, with the size of knowingly more than half the specified amount. and by the way, for such jobs, accounts are deliberately not cent accounts, for clarity. i have not listed all the conditions actually pursued in that job, which arose replica.
Perhaps then the excessive sympathy for the tester, will gradually disappear, but the understanding of the non-accidental nature of events, only to be restored, in one way or another.
You see, in this case you have to try. And for us to observe.
And your aim will be to show that it's not bullshit.
Vadim, that's not the point. Even if it's not bullshit. It's not serious...
What was the loss of equity at such crazy entries when the movement of less than 100 pips against the position could practically nullify the deposit? Or all the positions became profitable at once (not counting the minus of equity spread at opening)?
Alexei, I am reading the thread, I wonder how the dialogue will continue.
Some things, so far, cause ambiguous reactions. That's why it's interesting.
I also understand what you mean by seriousness/non-seriousness, but you shouldn't lump everything into one pile.
it's not a contest slip, it's different.
However, on the issue: the right to a drawdown was simply not there. a step away from the plan and calculations is a loss.
Ahh, I see what step you want to predict.
I have a more modest task - one bar of the current TF.
The thing is that what I have shown is a candle, a bar. So I want to predict the movement not even for a bar, but only a part of it. That's why it's more modest for me.