How do you practically assess the contribution of a "specific" input to the NS? - page 8
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
faa, do you think that all possible trading systems come down to regression and pattern recognition?
Of course not!
I'm not against the tests themselves, they are more or less correct, as they are taken from statistics. I care about something else: who determines their adequacy when applied to a given regression?
In this sense, econometrics seems similar to chemistry: there are a large number of "tests", for each of which one must still decide whether they are adequate in relation to the given problem.
There are truths, there are lies, and there are statistics which will estimate the probability of truths and lies.
With the help of statistics, any figure can easily be obtained. So the first rule of interpreting results is to match each line, each figure with some kind of content. If you can't, you can't trust the result. You cannot make a system of equations where one equation is EURUSD, the other is sunspots. maybe you can fit it, maybe even a forward test will pass, but you cannot believe it and that is it, without any evidence.
It learns 'on the fly'. The results are fantastic.
The trouble is that ZZ is drawing.
It doesn't draw anything on history, it stands like a monument.
On history, yes. I mean forward.
But you get fantastic results in hindsight, too.
If you find a non-drawing ZZ or similar, I'll make you rich.
Who are you asking )
))
Who are you asking? )
All TA is nonsense. If NS is pitted against ZZ, it's not nonsense, as we know exactly what we teach.
And you think that analysis of 33 is not TA and therefore not rubbish?) Than even the "maximum/minimum" mentioned by me is not the tops of 33 on some TF (more than likely). TA is not up to that?) You probably won't believe it, but any analysis of past price behaviour, by means of just Close, or even (I don't dare say it) ziggs, is all TA. Although for some TA's I have settled on RSI, Stonestick and again the proverbial MACD (damn all that opium).
And what to teach, for me personally, in any entry is clear - what we want to get. Someone teaches some mistakes big and small, and I honestly profit at a satisfying drawdown, FF, etc.
On history, yes. I mean forward.
But in hindsight you get fantastic results as well.
What does forward have to do with it, there is no ZZ, the NS has to recognize ZZ.
How will she recognize him if he's got seven Fridays in the week?
And then -- the forward is our everything, because that's all we're trying to do.
How's she going to recognize him if he's got seven Fridays in the week?
And then -- forward is everything, because that's all we're trying to do.
))
From someone who talks about nonsense)
And analysis 33 is not TA and therefore not nonsense?) Than you even mentioned "maximum/minimum" are not tops of 33 on some TF (more than likely). TA is not up to that?) You probably won't believe it, but any analysis of past price behaviour, by means of just Close, or even (I don't dare say it) ziggs, is all TA. Although for some TA's I have settled on RSI, Stonestick and again the proverbial MACD (damn all that opium).
And what to teach, for me personally, in any entry is clear - what we want to get. Someone teaches some mistakes big and small, and I honestly profit at a satisfying drawdown, PF, etc.
Once again. You've been taught. We know for sure there is a ZZ on the forward, but we don't know where. The NS, the scientist, recognises it.
Recognising what? Drawing a ZZ?
I wish you success in this difficult endeavour.
Oh, I almost forgot -- NS is not a panacea, it's just a tool, albeit a very subtle one.
And it will not do wonders, especially when combined with a ST.
And then the forward is our everything, because he's the only one we're trying for.