What is the average length of time it takes to understand the processes and identify some of the hidden patterns in forex? - 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
You clearly overestimate people with a 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.
Imho, of course, but it also depends on the market. Forex often stands out in this respect. Simple trend patterns work here, but there are problems with complicated things like using patterns.
Exactly so: came, saw, won. Was the grail with 20% return per month enough for you personally not to poke around in it anymore?
I'm sorry, but you came and bam, you are holding a grail with 20% per month, which is not the same.
The question is about time (or the number of lost deposits at least) between you came and you saw, and between you saw and you won.
That's right: come, see, win. Would you personally be satisfied with a grail with a rate of return of 20% per month and not have to dig in again?
I would be enough and 10 and even 5 would be enough just there is no such and will not be - all or adjustment, or a game of probability - again, IMHO unobtrusive and without claim to truth.
I would have had enough of 10 or even 5, but they do not and will not be, all or adjustment or a game of probability, again, IMHO unobtrusive and without pretensions to the truth.
No, no. Skeptics, please leave. )))) (just kidding)
The question of faith is not the issue here, and not a discussion of the topic, if you do not believe you do not write, I've already said once, what is the point of repeating the run.
No, no, skeptics, please leave. Or die, I do not know what's right. )))) (just kidding)
I am not here to talk about faith, if you do not believe me, do not write, I have already said it once, what is the point of repeating it?
All right, don't be mad at me.) Reading the thread in silence (shhhhhh) ....
Don't get all pissed off =) Reading the thread in silence (shhhhhh) ....
If you understand what you are counting and why, but the speed of calculation does not allow you to use it, then it is important to pay attention to how you are counting, it is not the primary thing in understanding the market, but it is essential in trading.
You yourself do not notice how you are gradually slipping into "windmills". Until you understand it, your way will be thorny and unproductive. The problem is not that the computer can't calculate all 6 000 000 combinations of parameters in any Expert Advisor, the problem is in your lack of understanding of what is really important and what is not. Determine what is important and you won't have to fool around with the other 5,999,999,999 combinations. This is just an example, but it gets the point across.
But you yourself do not notice how you are gradually descending into "windmills". Until you understand it, your way will be thorny and produce no results. The problem is not that the computer cannot calculate all 6 000 000 000 combinations of parameters in any Expert Advisor, the problem is in your lack of understanding of what is really important and what is not. Determine what is important and you won't have to fool around with the other 5,999,999,999 combinations. This is just an example, but it gets the point across.
To identify what's important and remove the clutter, that's what computing power is for.
And also, I have never described a ts anywhere, you are writing a response to my post within the framework of understanding a ts.
I am not interested in ts in principle. What is important to me is to see the true (or approximate) face of the market as a whole, and then I will manage without trying 6 000 000 combinations of EA parameters.
I am not interested in tsIs in principle, I am interested in seeing the true (or approximate) face of the market as a whole.
I am not interested in ts in principle. I need to see the true (or approximate) face of the market as a whole, and then I will manage without trying 6 000 000 combinations of EA's parameters.
The main element that determines what is important and what isn't is you, not the computing resources. If you are stumped by the capabilities of calculations, it means that you cannot separate the wheat from the chaff by yourself. In this case even the newest computer from the future will not help you.
The TC example is just an example, it does not apply to you personally. I simply tried to explain the problem in terms of TC.
I wonder how you are going to get an independent estimate of your assumptions. You can only ask the market through an intermediary - the TC. To your direct question it will give the answer you want it to give.
The main element that determines what is important and what is not is yourself, not the computing resources. If you are stumped by computational capability, it means that you cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on your own. In this case even the newest computer from the future will not help you.
The TC example is just an example, it does not apply to you personally. I simply tried to explain the problem in terms of TC.
I wonder how you are going to get an independent estimate of your assumptions. You can only ask the market through an intermediary - the TC. To your direct question he will give you the answer you want him to give.
wrote it already . I'll say it again.
it is difficult to understand for many people because people think in images, and to understand it at the level of imaginary thinking you need to have before your eyes a complete breakdown of everything at once, which is difficult for visual analysis. it is like seeing how deep the diffusion of two substances for each individual molecule, the eye can switch from molecule to molecule, analyzing them one by one relative to other molecules, and then merge the analysis results into one.
That is why computers should do it, and give ready results, simplified for visual analysis, when all information, computed and transformed for understanding by vision and mind, is in front of the trader.