Forget random quotes - page 17

New comment
 

faa1947: Священная корова данного форума - не перерисовывающиеся индикаторы. Под влиянием идей учета времени со своего первого знакомства с индикаторами я не видел ценности в не перерисовывающихся индикаторах. Индикатор - это некий взгляд на рынок. Естественно, что по приходу нового бара этот взгляд следует поменять. На рынке новый бар и это другой рынок и для него должна быть другая оценка, которая, возможно, не совпадет с предыдущей.

It should be kept in mind that too frequent correction and editing of the market valuation indicates that it is unreliable and therefore its value is questionable. And if the valuation requires editing relatively infrequently, there is no point in erasing it because it is useful information.
 
Andrei01:
One has to keep in mind that too frequent corrections and edits to market valuations indicate that they are unreliable and therefore their value is questionable. And if the valuation needs to be corrected relatively infrequently, then there is no point in erasing it because it is useful information.

This is an excuse for a sacred cow. Whether it overdraws or not is secondary to the trading system, it is where the decision is made.

But getting back to the topic, I am proving that the market is much more stable than it may seem at first glance. It follows that we need to learn to recognize this stability and trade it. If our TS is trending, then recognize trends. Be able to separate the noise from the deterministic component.

By the way, apart from the link at the beginning of the thread, I saw a story on TV today that someone in the US was fined 6 billion for manipulating the financial market.

 
faa1947:

The question of time is fundamental to all knowledge today.

Our knowledge is based on the notion of identity: the object A is identically equal to itself.

But this is not entirely true. This dead formula does not take into account that some time has passed since the identity formula was written and object A has evolved during this time and is not quite equal to itself.

I was taught this a long time ago and I don't forget it for a minute.

Time must always be kept in mind, and if we don't take it into account in an argument, there must be a good reason for it.

Case in point.

The sacred cow of this forum is non redrawing indicators. Since my first acquaintance with indicators, I have not seen the value of non-transforming indicators under the influence of timekeeping ideas. An indicator is a kind of market view. Naturally, when a new bar comes, this view must be changed. There is a new bar in the market and it is a different market and there should be a different valuation for it, which may not coincide with the previous one.

People who ignore time are foaming at the mouth to defend their sacred cow. Those, who remember that the market always depends on the time and the functional dependence on the time is only a matter of a particular model, prefer indicators that take into account the latest information, and whether they redraw or not is a secondary issue and not very important at all. What is important is the essence of the indicator and not its past appearance.

So HideYourRichess hasa methodological inaccuracy based on a misunderstanding of the role of time itself.

There is another way to look at the problem. There are trading systems based on levels (fractals, breaks of zigzags etc.) and they do not care when and over what time these levels were formed and when they will be broken or broken back - they are actually static and change their condition when new levels appear regardless of when they are formed. Such systems do not depend on the speed and direction of price movement, i.e. we can say they are time-independent.
 
faa1947:

This is an excuse for a sacred cow. Whether or not it overdraws is secondary to the trading system, it is where the decision is made.

This is not an excuse but an explanation of logic. The need for redrawing is a disadvantage from all sides - and it's harder to write code and the usefulness is questionable.
 
HideYourRichess:
I think he writes the opposite of what I write. I wouldn't want to contrast the impact of 'memory' on price with the impact of time on price.

It seems to me that we are not putting the same concept in the word 'memory'. Memory is inseparable from the arrow of time, if only because we remember what happened yesterday and cannot remember what will happen tomorrow. Any process capable of remembering its past state, be it price movement or your shopping today, is predetermined in and dependent on time. You, on the other hand, understand "memory" to be something that has nothing to do with time.
 
faa1947:

This is an excuse for a sacred cow. Whether or not it overdraws is secondary to the trading system, it is where the decision is made.


faa1947, I think you misunderstand the concept of "overpricing". Indicator redrawability here in this forum means looking into the future. If at time t the indicator shows the value a1, and at time t+1 this same indicator shows for previous time t the value a2, then it is a re-draw indicator, because it takes for time t the value a2 calculated from t2, which at time t has not come and therefore is not known.
 
Andrei01:
This is not an excuse but an explanation of logic. The need for re-drawing is a disadvantage from all sides - and it is harder to write code and questionable in usefulness.

Once again, redrawing is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. And it is definitely not a sacred cow for me. I want to remind you that when presenting a new indicator the first question is if it re-runs. I've never asked about non redrawing indicators - how much their lag is.

Finally, I want to mention that I have my doubts about the usefulness of any indicators, but I'm just saying.

 
C-4:

faa1947, I think you misunderstand the concept of redrawability. The redrawability of indicators here in this forum means looking into the future. If at time t the indicator shows the value a1, and at time t+1 this same indicator shows for previous time t the value a2, then it is a re-draw indicator, because it takes for time t the value a2 calculated from t2, which at time t has not come and therefore is unknown.
I have never understood "looking into the future". ZZ is what kind of indicator?
 
FION:
There is another way to look at the problem. There are trading systems based on levels (fractals, breaks of zigzags etc.) and they do not care when and over what time these levels were formed and when they will be broken through or bounced from them - they are actually static and change their condition when new levels appear, regardless of when they are formed. Such systems do not depend on the speed and direction of price movement, i.e. we can say they are time-independent.
Undoubtedly. The AR(1) is widely used when only the previous value is taken into account, though the history is needed to calculate the parameters as in the case of any levels.
 
faa1947:


So HideYourRichess hasa methodological inaccuracy based on a lack of understanding of the role of time itself.

No arguments, hypnosis is at work )

A chukcha is sitting on the shore and meditating.

- I will not fart, I will not fart, I will not fart.

OOPS

- It wasn't me who farted, it wasn't me who farted, it wasn't me who farted...

1...101112131415161718192021222324...66
New comment