What is the average length of time it takes to understand the processes and identify some of the hidden patterns in forex? - page 6
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
You are clearly overestimating people with a good scientific background. They tend to put the scientific method ahead of the idea. Often there is nothing in their methods apart from the method itself. The market is not important to them, it is only the object of application; it is the method itself that is important. They spend years fighting windmills that in fact don't even exist. Just generate simple and sensible ideas and then the market will reciprocate. I can safely say that the depth of an idea is inversely proportional to its complexity - the market knows this and proves it to me every day.
Thanks for more or less common sense in the thread, yes, I also put process understanding first, but unfortunately afterwards you still have to think about implementation, the trouble with those who look with a scientific mindset is that they start to pull analysis methods onto something that they cannot "pull" onto inherently (different nature of the methods and the process).
But it's just that it always seemed to me from Prival's posts that in his 1.5 years on the forum he went all the way from one-pair analysis to multicurrency understanding and so on.
I don't understand how he did it with such a productivity the other 7 years earlier, in fact nothing at all since his appearance on the forum started with a discussion from the bottom.
I can say with certainty that the depth of an idea is inversely proportional to its complexity - the market knows this, and proves this rule to me every day.
Well, not inversely proportional of course, but there is clearly no direct correlation.
C-4:
Я могу с уверенностью сказать что глубина идеи обратно пропорциональна ее сложности, - рынок знает об этом, и каждый день доказывает мне это правило.
Are you saying (to paraphrase you): the market is simple and you can make money on it using rather simple and primitive methods?
Read as a branch and came across a post Prival, the end of 2008, so he started his search in the forum in 2007 and found his "granalnoe" for 1.5 years by 2009.
So in the post from the branch he wrote the following about himself -
You're obviously overestimating people with a good scientific background. They, as a rule, put the scientific method before the idea. Often there is nothing in their methods apart from the method itself. The market is not important to them, it is only the object of application; it is the method itself that is important. They spend years fighting windmills that in fact don't even exist. Just generate simple and sensible ideas and then the market will reciprocate. I can say with certainty that the depth of an idea is inversely proportional to its complexity - the market knows this and proves this rule to me every day.
Isn't it possible that a problem based on a simple and sensible idea can only be solved by complicated methods?
I have a grail(or so I think, I haven't tested it yet). But there is no machine capable of calculating it in a reasonable amount of time. What am I supposed to do now? I don't have any simpler ideas, it doesn't seem to be any simpler...
Fuck, it's starting ...... If you say something about Thomas, it's not so ambiguous here, and you get a description of heresy in all its glory and say that you do not understand heresy. one will review a verbber and at the same time offer to calculate some bullshit with numbers, another will start discussing the topic, and the third one will use personalities and definitions...... pfft.
Do you havea link?
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/108503/page8#116609
Are you saying (to paraphrase you): the market is simple and you can make money on it using rather simple and primitive methods?
You clearly overestimate people with good scientific background. They tend to put the scientific method ahead of the idea. Often there is nothing in their methods but the method itself. For them, the market is not important; it is only the object of application; it is the method itself that is important. They spend years fighting windmills that in fact don't even exist. Just generate simple and sensible ideas and then the market will reciprocate. I can say with certainty that the depth of an idea is inversely proportional to its complexity - the market knows this and proves this rule to me every day.
Here it is, the salt of the earth - a thought that has been haunting me for a very long time.
The vast majority of "bright heads" came to Forex not for the money, but for the idea! There is a type of people for whom the process is much more important than the result.
These people train neuronets, weave macramé out of MAs and click clusters just for the sake of applying their minds. Usually these are mathematically (technically, "programmatically", market-wise) literate people for whom the result (in the form of funds in the account) is not as important as the process of creating it. This is what I've got here: "I've got a small gap in the equity graph, I need to take this into account and add an adaptive filter".
Sometimes it comes to the absurd - people start looking for patterns where they do not and cannot exist and find "bursts of profitability" on a practically random process anyway.
Chasing the idea of making money on pseudo-random processes, many of us forget those long ago, when they came to Forex FOR MONEY!
Well, let's say, if we offer each of you an Expert Advisor, that consistently gives 20% to 75% of your deposit a month for free, how many of you will have enough of it not to look for something else? In order not to try to increase its profitability, to smooth out drawdowns (even though they are not there) and not to try to add something else to it? There is bound to be a smart guy with a decompiler, for whom the idea is more important than money.
Urain gave a link to the definition. I am in favour of using definitions. Without them there will be no consensus. Who cares what you call yourself? Or what the other residents of 'rope room 7 dacha' call themselves. It does not matter. What matters is the result, i.e. it is important to have understanding. And you have it. Schoolchildren? Yes. I'm a schoolboy, too.
If I didn't know ... I'd probably think either you were joking or ... "Russia has never been in such a mess before!". How can you answer that question? I'm wondering the same thing...