A question about making money in the FOREX market - page 25

New comment
 
lizzavet:

Well, there you go, saying girls aren't taken seriously here

He means "the smartest."
 
Mathemat:
Fat, fat, hairy men masquerading as pretty, demure and innocent schoolgirls.

What do they need it for?
 
Demi:

There is a graph of SB, the ISC will find a linear regression on it, i.e. a linear functional relationship that does not actually exist in SB. Does this call into question the apparatus of regression analysis?

So shouldn't we abandon both gradients and regression analysis?


No, we shouldn't. The ISC will find what it is asked to find. The problem is not that the ANC shows a trend line where there can't be one, the problem is our interpretation of what the ANC shows. We see a regression and try to extend it into the future - this is where the difficulty begins. Let's take an ordinary simple moving average. Does it lag? The correct answer is no it does not lag. It lags in relation to our future forecast, but not in relation to the data it is calculated on. Yes, it does not even correspond to the last known price, but it is the perfect equilibrium price of the period for which it is calculated. The average price doesn't show the future average price, but many people try to extrapolate its current state into the future and get the proverbial "lag." But if you find, for example, that the formation of future prices is influenced to some extent by the equilibrium prices of past periods - then you get a working system, which can be based on a moving average. This applies to any technical or fundamental indicator. The trader has to find the correlation between the current and future changes - that is the forecast. The indicators themselves do not determine the future and do not find such correlations, but they very clearly classify the current changes. With their help, we can identify only those changes that we want to study, and if they are interesting, build on them the dependence of the future from the past - this is a trading system. Let's take an example, if you notice that before a strong price change, two moving averages tend to cross each other with higher frequency, then these two averages can be the basis of your trading system. When their frequency of crossing each other increases to a certain extent, you simply buy volatility. The averages will sort of tell youto"buy", although at the same time most people will see the absence of price movement, and these same averages will tell them the same thing. As you can see, the problem is not with the indicators, and not with what they show, but with the fact that most people trade what they see now, and do not even think about the consequences for the future that today's change might cause.

 

to:Demi.

I don't know why you're even trying to rub it in and ask me about anything. What I am writing about here is too simple for newcomers like you to understand. It is very likely that you have a higher technical education or even a scientific degree, but it does not matter at all, only experience is the son of misfortune. Look at Yusuf: higher education, Ph.D. in econometrics, but a novice in trade matters. The main problem is his lack of understanding of what he is doing. He does not understand the indicator he made, he tries to use it - failure. He sees in it what he wants to see, but not what it actually shows. So you and I are too on different "planets". To you my words are nothing more than bird chirping, so why do you need it? To have a laugh? For a laugh? I remember when I was a kid I used to laugh at my teachers' fame, because I didn't understand. Now I realize how right they were. I don't want to laugh anymore.

 

to:C-4

1. Leave Yusuf alone already. I don't understand the ridicule of him at all. Is he raising his thread? Well, he's trying to get recommendations on how to improve his own turkey. At least almost all his posts are related to the forum topic.

2. Let's not raise the issue of "old timer" and "newbie" or I'll laugh out loud.

3. really want to understand this henna logic. You're spouting some pile of your perceptions where everything is mixed up and mixed up. When you try to make sense of that pile, you chase it up with another pile and it all gets completely confused. It is POSSIBLE that there is some original thought in that pile after all.

So:

Let's not touch the "lag"!

As you wrote above: "The problem of technical indicators and of the technical analysis in general is that they do not change their behavior depending on the object studied. ...... So why should we trust this indicator, if it will give the same indications on obviously senseless data" (C).

Even lower: "The indicators themselves do not determine the future, nor do they find such correlations, but they do classify current changes very clearly. With their help we can identify only those changes, which we want to study, and if they are interesting, construct on them the dependence of the future from the past - this is the trading system" (C).

Contradiction, however! we are not talking about what indicators are for - prediction, prediction, "classification" etc. You above cross out the whole TA or its inducator part, and below you give them the right to live.

Conclusion?

 
C-4: Look at Yusuf: higher education, Ph.D. in econometrics, but a novice in trade matters.
That's strong. Should we put him in the Annals?
 
C-4:

Let's take an example, if you notice that before a strong price change two moving averages tend to cross each other with higher frequency, then these two averages can be the basis for your trading system. When their frequency of crossing each other increases to a certain extent, you simply buy volatility. The averages will sort of tell youto"buy", although at the same time most people will see the absence of price movement, and these same averages will tell them the same thing. As you can see, the problem is not with the indicators, and not with what they show, but with the fact that most people trade what they see now, and do not even think about the implications for the future that today's change may cause.

And an interesting example: if I detect this effect, then when their frequency of crossing increases I just don't buy "volatility" (what does volatility have to do with anything?), I buy the probability of a strong move in the future. And I won't care what other people see at the same time.

All people, when they open a position in the market, ALWAYS and ALWAYS trade the future and think about the future. Trading in the financial markets is trading on the difference between the seg price and the future price. Unless of course it is arbitrage/.

If you think TA's problem is an interpretation problem, then yes, there is a problem. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Since we are having such a bash and New Year's Eve is not yet tomorrow, I will continue with my "muddle of thoughts".

Yesterday I wrote the following:

C-4:

... at least as a first approximation, we should assume that trading robots have a consciousness and a will independent of us.

This is not a drunken prank or any kind of nonsense. I never write nonsense. But it is impossible to understand what was meant without a general understanding of the picture. How does the process of writing a trading algorithm usually work? We often take several indicators, often at random, by the principle of "liking - disliking", and feed them into an optimizer or a neural network. After some time, the combinations that meet our requirements of profitability, risk, etc. are selected. Such systems are quite rightly doomed to fail in the real world. The machine did find what it was supposed to do: it found a combination, the result of which at the selected time interval gave the required characteristics. The main point, which is the existence of a link between certain behaviour in the future and certain behaviour in the past, was ignored. But rarely does a "researcher" get lucky and actually trawl into his or her own mindless net, something that can be profitable. He hooks into a process whose nature he doesn't even understand. The "researcher" naively thinks it's about some magic indicator of his. In this case, he only understands the external algorithm of the system, but the system itself is incommensurably closer to what actually makes a profit. It, rather than its clueless owner, has fumbled for something that is incomprehensible even to him. In this sense, the system has become better than man, it has sort of become possessing an independent consciousness and a will, it traces the process with a logic that was created for the other. And no matter what the master of the system thinks of its logic, in reality it may correspond to something greater, but he is not even aware of it.
 
C-4:

EACH AND EVERY TS ACTS ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ACCORDING TO THE ALGORITHM LAID DOWN IN IT BY THE TS CREATOR. Stop mocking the notions of "will" and "consciousness". It's like saying that a calculator has more will and consciousness than me because it counts faster.

"You take, often at random, "like - dislike" a few indicators and put them into an optimizer or a neural network. After some time, combinations that meet our requirements for profitability, risk, etc. are selected. Such systems are rightly doomed to fail in real life." - where does this loud and controversial thesis come from? What does it come from? How did you find it?

Yes, I put 100 indicators into NS, not knowing beforehand which combination of them will have an effect! Yes, the NS found the combination! So there's no point in trading it????

"The main thing, namely the connection between certain behaviour in the future and certain behaviour in the past, has been ignored. " - how is it ignored if NS has found this link and I am using it to trade??????? The problem is that I can't find an explanation for this connection? I don't need it for trading.

Once again - if I find a stable probabilistic relationship between the behavior of indicators now and the price in the future, then I will use it to trade even if I cannot interpret its eq meaning! I don't need it.

What is the economic sense in TA???? indicators? None! And you don't need it.

 
Demi:

What is the economic point of TA???? indicators None! And there's no need for one.

Explain to me what you mean by "economic sense"?
1...181920212223242526272829303132...38
New comment