Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 25
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
It's not a bullshit moment. It's not an indicator as you understand it.
it's an indicator of market conditions, determined by statistics on history.
it ispartly an interpretation of the aforementioned shepherd's n-volatility (alas, I have completed it myself, in my ignorance of shepherd, and it is somewhat different from the author's).
There is no question about any re-rating there, I repeat - it is not an indicator as you understand it.
)))) And you lied that you do not know about it. It is exactly what it is, even if you look for it as a terver, even if you call it predicted volatility, even if you call it anything else.
I did not say you have overprediction, I said it is mean when they hide it and mean when they pick a better one.
But you show a very bad and ambiguous situation when your indicator is not ideal, what's the habit of showing and guess what to do with it?
I would have thought it would show not the direction, but a kind of overload.
Another troll. Well, that's funny.
Anything on the topic?
any results? (locked real with a long trading history)
Otherwise, the question of trolism is open...
)))) You lied that you did not know about it. It is what it is, even if you look for it with a terver, or call it predictable volatility or something else.
I did not say you have overprediction, I said it is mean when they hide it and mean when they pick a better one.
But you show a very bad and ambiguous situation when your indicator is not ideal, what's the habit of showing and guess what to do with it?
I think it shows not the direction, but some kind of overstrain.
I did not lie. I really did not know. I read it today, an hour ago. I did not understand everything at once, but his thoughts and directions are the same as mine (in terms of this particular indicator).
But of course you won't believe me. Well, whatever.
I do not understand what I am trying to do with this indicator.
the indicator was not intended for discussion.
is this satisfactory?
any results? (locked real with a long history of bidding)
otherwise, the question of trolism is open...
I'm not a taxpayer, am I?
do YOU have results? who are you to ask me for them? :-\
* trading using this algorithm involves automation. alas, it is difficult to keep track of manuals, if you enter the market, the transaction may take more than a day.
but the problem at this point is just in implementing the expert. I do not need help)) just a fact, the expert is working.
manual trading was quite successful.
i did not lie. i really did not know. i read it today, an hour ago. i did not understand everything at once, but his thoughts and directions are similar to mine (in terms of this specific indicator).
But of course you won't believe me. Well, whatever.
I do not understand what I am trying to do with this indicator.
the indicator was not intended for discussion.
is this answer satisfactory?
Let's not have you guessing what I'll believe and what I won't) pis.
If I didn't believe in the forward-looking stuff you're talking about, I wouldn't have come here, and I wouldn't have written about H-volatility. Everything is knitted precisely on it. It's a question of variations in its definition.
One more thing. You speak of some statistical constant, so H-volatility itself is volatile. There is only some dimensionless value 2H, relative to which the trend is defined, it should be higher than it, but the volatility itself is volatile.
As soon as possible. Are you with the IRS?
do you have the results? who are you to ask me for them, huh? :-\
* Unfortunately, if you enter the market, the transaction may take more than a day to complete.
i don't need any help )) it's just a fact, the Expert Advisor is working.
i don't need any help) its just a fact, the Expert Advisor is working.
i thought so, nothing to show.
That's what I thought, nothing to show for it.
Likewise. You, too, obviously.
mutual. you, too, obviously.
Let's not have you guessing what I believe and what I don't) pis.
If I didn't believe in the forward-looking stuff you're talking about, I wouldn't have come here, and I wouldn't have written about H-volatility. Everything is knitted precisely on it. It's a question of variations in its definition.
One more thing. You speak of some statistical constant, so H-volatility itself is volatile. There is only some dimensionless value 2H, relative to which the trend is defined, it should be higher, but the volatility itself is volatile.
I came to understand the market definition through volatility on my own, I can hardly give it to you in words, maybe Pastukhov has a better one))
You are interested in my definition of the volatility dimension, which is used to measure a trend-flat?
I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that there is a certain statistically determined value (not constant!) that has certain limits, by the value of which at its extreme values the market's accumulated potential for a rally can be identified.
There is accumulation - we wait for a discharge. there is no accumulation - we look for options where there is such accumulation.
Shall we discuss the calculation of H-volatility or not?
Well, I've scared off another one, I can put another tick on the list of victims of H-volatility.
Whenever I talk about it, everyone disappears into a whirlpool))))