A question about making money in the FOREX market - page 14

New comment
 
avtomat:
I've taken my mind off this topic - I had other important tasks. But I will come back to it and finish it off. However, I can't promise a deadline - most likely after the New Year holidays.
Of course, I do not expect earlier. Anyway our stock exchange is closed all holidays, so these two weeks will have to drink. But after a planned binge it will be useful to get my mind back to normal.
 
C-4:

The problem with technical indicators and technical analysis in general is that they do not change their behaviour depending on the object of study. Apply MACD to a price chart - at times it will show divergence and convergence, it will shift from the positive to the negative zone. Apply it to the most primitive SB chart - it will show the same patterns and will possess the same behaviour. The question is why should we believe this indicator, if it will give the same indications on obviously meaningless data?


Technical indicators are a kind of filter. Almost every indicator can give an ideal entry point into the market at a certain time at certain settings of input (ideal) parameters. To predict these parameters is often much easier than a dry price chart. Having calculated these parameters, you can more likely determine the ideal price or time of entry. And try to build a regression for the three ideal parameters of the same matzod on a meaningless chart - it will not work.

 
lizzavet:

And you try plotting a regression for the three ideal parameters of the same matzod on a meaningless graph - it doesn't work.

I want to disappoint you: it will work and it will work a lot more, because your MACD is also a regression, only very primitive.
 

This is not the first time I have made a copy of my post about using indicators in a TS

price will be the dependent variable (function) and the other indicators will be the independent variables. Here is a schematic equation:

price price(-1) dac(-1) dao(-1) dbears(-1) dbulls(-1) cci(-1) dframa(-1) dmacdm(-1)

-1 means previous value. This is natural, because the indicator is derived from price analytically. Let's consider that price is an increment and therefore we will take indicator increments. I do not use all indicators due to laziness (I use the discriminant analysis from the author of the article). Let's estimate the equation using the method of least squares:

We have obtained an estimate of the equation coefficients. The last column is very interesting: it means the probability that the corresponding coefficient is equal to zero. This probability for all coefficients is considerably higher than at least 10%, i.e. we can consider that we cannot reject the hypothesis that the corresponding coefficient is equal to zero. Accordingly, the R-squared has a ridiculous value.

I conclude that it is useless to use indicators as they do not relate to the price increment.

 
Finding the best solution also means finding the right formulation of the problem.
 
What surprises me is this... Why do people with a head and considerable training strive to make a trading system, for which a hundred or two percent profit a year is considered a good indicator, while an unburdened novice easily loses 100% of his first deposit in a couple of weeks, thus showing that by performing the opposite of his actions a third party would have doubled without a problem during the same period of time? How does a beginner achieve such "productivity"? What does he do that his knowledge-packed mind cannot comprehend?
I have not seen any "works" about Forex! It's beautiful. Ready-made dissertations. And at the end... the most magnificent phrase: "... The system proved to be stable, consistently showing close to 50% positive statistics..."
The author of this thread is "offended" by Martingale. He has a guaranteed loss, you see. And he didn't try to do the exact opposite of those required by the TS? After all, if you believe him, in this case, it is guaranteed to be doubling the deposit (!) ...
While geniuses with academic titles search for the Grail, it, this Grail, "lying upside down" right in front of their noses ... and hundreds of percent of 95 percent of traders' deposits are being dumped.
Isn't that where you're looking, gentlemen?
 
prikolnyjkent:


While geniuses with academic titles are searching for the Grail, the Grail is "lying upside down" right in front of their noses...

The cleverest among millions of other clever ones

 
faa1947, is that all you have to say?
 
prikolnyjkent:
What surprises me is this... Why do people with a head and considerable training strive to make a trading system, for which a hundred or two percent profit a year is considered a good indicator, while an unburdened beginner easily loses 100% of his first deposit in a couple of weeks, thus showing that by performing the opposite of his actions a third-party observer would have doubled without a problem during the same period of time? What allows a beginner to achieve such "productivity"? What does he do that his knowledge-packed mind cannot comprehend?
I have not seen any "works" about Forex! Beautiful! Ready-made dissertations. And at the end... the most magnificent phrase: "... "The system has proven to be robust, consistently showing close to 50 per cent positive results."
The author of this thread is "offended" by Martingale. He has a guaranteed loss, you see. And he hasn't tried to do the exact opposite of those required by the TS? After all, if you believe him, in this case, it is guaranteed to be doubling the deposit (!) ...
While geniuses with academic titles search for the Grail, it, this Grail, "lying upside down" right in front of their noses ... and hundreds of percent of 95 percent of traders' deposits are being dumped through it.
Isn't that where you're looking, gentlemen?

To make a million, you have to invest a million. In the process, you find a million and the first part is solved.
 
faa1947:

This is not the first time I have made a copy of my post about using indicators in a TS

price will be the dependent variable (function) and the other indicators will be the independent variables. Here is a schematic equation:

price price(-1) dac(-1) dao(-1) dbears(-1) dbulls(-1) cci(-1) dframa(-1) dmacdm(-1)

-1 means previous value. This is natural, because the indicator is derived from price analytically. Let's consider that price is an increment and therefore we will take indicator increments. I do not use all indicators due to laziness (I use the discriminant analysis from the author of the article). Let's estimate the equation using the least squares method:

We have got the estimation of the equation coefficients. The last column is very interesting: it denotes the probability that the corresponding coefficient is equal to zero. This probability for all the ratios is much higher than at least 10%, i.e. we can consider that we cannot reject the hypothesis of equality to zero of the corresponding coefficient. Accordingly the R-squared has a ridiculous value.

I conclude that it is useless to use indicators - they are useless, as they are not related to the price increment.


It only shows that the indicator reading is a function of the lagged price. - And therefore, consequently, it is very difficult to forecast the price with it. Right?

I meant a completely different approach.

1...789101112131415161718192021...38
New comment