Forget random quotes - 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
there are no real volumes
Answer for yourself and for everyone else where do you want to get these volumes from?
There are real volumes in MT5, but only those that the broker has. No other volumes can be provided by the broker.
Some kind of slyness: "depends, but it changes". Changes independently? There is something to this statement, though.
On the one hand, all our calculations are based on observations made at a certain time, are linked to time and generally we work with time series.
You are dealing with time series. And I have the same question again - where is the justification that price = time series? Because it's convenient for you? Because that's the way it's usually done?
But.
1. In modelling it is possible to work with quotes (which are a time series) with and without time. If we are talking about forex, then usually the time cycle is not taken into account, although the number of ticks has such cycle at least according to the time of day. But if we trade some agricultural products, we will have to take time into account to account cyclicality in the model. This subtlety is clearly visible in any econometric package.
2) There is one more nuance. In statistical quotient analysis, the basic technique is to detrend the quotient, as the presence of a deterministic component distorts any statistics. The standard technique is to include a trend in the model in the form of a*t or a*t2. This is usually enough for a reason. Here time is directly as an argument of the function.
Price, if viewed in terms of time, as is usually the case, is a martingale ( https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1446 ). Or very similar to it. As such, no reasonable strategy allows you to "make money" on it.
If price is viewed from the perspective of the processes that form it, it is not a martingale.
In December, around Christmas, the market flies like scalds on small volumes ("thin"), and sometimes even billions of dollars of volume cannot be moved.
I understand if a bunch of people bought and at the same time a similar bunch sold because there was confusion, the volumes are large, but there is a delta, the difference between buying and selling and it should determine the movement of the pair regardless of the thinness and fatness of the market. This delta should be directly proportional to the distance from the start point to the end point in pips, regardless of the antics of the price during this movement. Or am I misunderstanding the case?
The thin market for me is just the place where you can make a guaranteed profit, some guys put up unrealistic prices and like the price of the pair has changed, the volumes do not confirm it, so it's all a fake, you can open a deal in the opposite direction.
In short, the delta is not proportional - the price is not real))
On what grounds are you dissatisfied with linear regression? After all, there have long been methods of justifying the need to increase the complexity of the functional form of the model, always checking whether the chosen functional form is redundant.
Now you're piling up the time, and now you're throwing out words about linear regression ...... More helpful, pls.
Price, when viewed in terms of time, as is generally accepted, is a martingale ( https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1446 ). Or very similar to it. As such, no sensible strategy allows you to "make money" from it.
You are the one dealing with time series. And I have the same question again - where is the rationale that price = time series? Because it's convenient for you? Because that's the way it's usually done?
Hover your cursor over any bar and you see the word Time at the top of the table. You open almost any indicator - there is the word Period or its analogue. Or is it a practical joke for you?
If the price is considered in terms of its forming processes - it is not martingale.
I cannot think of any function (model) that has as its argument a process that forms the price of any asset, not to mention currencies.
So? What successes do these sound methods have?
Nothing follows from the fact that you don't know them and don't seem to be able to understand them.
Yusuf and Ananimus and I have touched on a couple of related topics. They have nothing to do with you.
Pardon me, although I seem to be the topicstarter.
1. We see the prices at which deals have already taken place. This is how Reuters displays quotations (a piper's dream, as the price easily overlaps the spread a few dozen times a minute). In the stock market we see limit orders, which form the Bid and Ask.
2.Volumes on Forex are a virtual thing because there is no single platform.
3. The Euro futures go together with the Eurobucks. Therefore, real volumes on the euro can be taken from the futures.
4. There is no specific money figure to move the price by 1 point or 5 points. There is supply and demand satisfaction. Look at the euro franc. The daily spread barely exceeds 5 pips.
5. All that comes to us in MT is shaved quotes and all the sweet bids have already been realised.
3. Euro futures run together with the Eurobucks. Therefore, real volumes on the euro can be taken from the futures.
Why this happens, I cannot grasp the physical essence of a thin and "thick" market, I understand if a bunch of people bought and at the same time a similar bunch sold because there was confusion, large volumes, but there is a delta, the difference between buying and selling and it should determine the price movement regardless of market thinness and fatness. This delta should be directly proportional to the distance from the start point to the end point in pips, regardless of the antics of the price during this movement. Or am I misunderstanding the case?
For me, the thin market is just the place where one can earn guaranteed money, some guy put up unrealistic prices and like the price has changed, the volumes do not confirm it, it means that all this is a fake, you can open a deal in the opposite direction.
In short, the delta is not proportional - the price is not real))
Your reasoning has nothing to do with price movement. You've introduced a non real definition of "real price" and now you're trying to fit the rest under that definition.
Ideally, scientifically, the market is driven by the opinion of the crowd: "the price will rise" and that is why the price rises.
The link I gave at the beginning shows that crowd opinion can be formed and this formed opinion has nothing to do with the "reality" of price.
As I understand it, your "real" price is the well-known "effective price". That is what I am denying.
I think that before the abandonment of the gold standard in the 70s, price movements reflected some sort of economic reality. The mechanism was supply-demand. That's not the case today. The most obvious is oil prices, which have nothing to do with production. or consumption of oil. It has to do with the amount of US paper printed. We live in a matrix according to the movie of the same name - the world is invented by someone. The material I quoted names specific individuals. It is a very rare case that the secret has come to light. Usually we don't know that.
Everything I have written is very positive for us. There are trends in all markets. You cannot turn the market instantly because you have to shape the crowd's opinion in the right direction. The one, who starts to form the crowd's opinion, wins - he has a "leading indicator". We always have a hope to jump into a tram which is already moving and make a little money. But that's if we believe in trends and don't believe in stochastic nonsense.
There you go again with your reasoning... The same was in the feature selection thread, only there you had to justify the applicability of TI to the market.
"Price = time series" simply because it's convenient has been around for at least 500 years. No mathematician or practitioner gets into this medieval philosophical nonsense and tries to claim that in a process described by an explicit function of time f(t), time is the prime cause.
So one can go so far as to say that in the motion of a stone thrown upwards, time is the prime cause. But this is not true: Newton's laws do not explicitly contain time, they are the relations of cause and effect. However, from these laws many divergences are derived in which the independent variable is time. This is convenient - full stop.
Enough with the sophistry which is of no use. There is no need to confuse prime mover and dumb independent variable.
Price, when viewed from the perspective of time, as is commonly accepted, is a martingale ( https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1446 ). Or very similar to it. As such, no sensible strategy allows you to "make money" on it.
If we look at the price from the point of view of the processes that form it, it is not a martingale.
Martingale or non-martingale is simply a way of looking at it or a matter of belief. There are several schools of thought that view price in different ways. The first is fundamentalist, they look at formative processes and believe they know the causes. They often don't even know what a martingale is, as they don't need it and it is even harmful.
The second are chartists (thechanists) who abstract away from these alleged causes and bluntly look at the price as a function of time (or bar number, for example) and try to predict it. It's convenient for them, that's all. They don't care at all whether time is the root cause of price movement or not - just like fundamentalists, by the way.
There are other schools, but let's not talk about them.