Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 139
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
In order to avoid confusion, in this case it is TA Tactics of Adversa and not technical analysis, I suggest to write TA Tactics of Adversa, and TA Tactics of Adversa - TAdv.
We will continue in this branch not about markets, but about SB, on which it also works. Because it has already been said about the SB for 100 pages.
And I suggest closing the thread.
I'm against it.
... wrote on the subject and even gave a link on the spider that has a piece on how he's getting somewhere on the almost SB posted by ForAxel.
I think the regulars on the branch should be interested.
In this respect, of course, Adverse has flaws, they have come to an understanding of this essence, but in the minds of this understanding for some reason did not start to hammer.
This is not a shortcoming of the TA, which is a method of analysis, not a means of influence. It was not the job of the multi-points to get it into the mind as well. Everyone has their own way.
HUK : "I personally wondered why when you show such pictures, they show dynamics of changes and corrections in the patterns. Or people are waiting when this pattern is over and a new one appears?
You do not need to wait, you can always play in the right direction, adjusting conditions to your goals.
I find it strange to hear about statics;) In TA the work is done on the fact of appearance of the model. That is, without fixing all the points of the model, its construction is not done. There is no model, there is no subject of analysis.
Your "play" shows that you are not talking about a method of analysis, but about a trading strategy. These are different things.
"Pattern corrections" in TA are impossible in principle. This is another point you do not understand. And, really, let's be done with the adverse.
HUK: "And I suggest we continue in this thread not about markets but about SB"
What is the physical meaning of SB? Why does it wander randomly? How can an object wander randomly in isolation from the mechanism of causality? Is SB not subordinate to them?
And what creation, he saw an exponential dependence of pattern stat advantage on time, that is, the it is less frequent, the higher its stat advantage (for PRNG at least). So at first he pulled patterns by the ears along the time axis. But then he got around the problem of rarity. And so my imho is that he started pulling patterns not along the time axis but across or slightly obliquely. He got the same compaction of probability, only not along but across, overlapping the plans. Actually, the patterns of adversa probably is the first step, which gives a stat advantage for - "along", Overlaying the parallel existing plans with these patterns on each other should give compaction.
1 - Am I correct in assuming that the end result should be some kind of common (out-of-plan) out-of-plan coincidence of conditions from different plans, i.e. some kind of generalising pattern that will tie the puzzle together? Although, on the other hand, the patterns of adversa - should already be the result of compaction in the finished form, hence have such final forms.
2 - Then the question is, what formations have interplanar final patterns? About combinatorics someone Used wrote about, he probably just for that very purpose tried to make many from one game to get also probability compaction not along but across - for here and now.
And another thing, imho, recalculation of all plans should be tried with minimum discrete change, i.e. for example minute - start discretisation, then recalculation every minute, if hour - then hour, forming complete list of traf including also non-standard 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m...
The levels calculated earlier from the intertemporal intervals may fluctuate at sliding windows of that kind, i.e. there will appear probability limits of levels' execution (probably). Except why wait for the execution of levels when you can get the curve of change in the compaction itself.
3 - It seems, that as well as at wave-technicians and at others always the general is told, and about details is kept silent, probably, and Gunn used your mythical "laws of the Universe", but his secret never showed in full measure, so, rubbish only laid out. How you differ from Eliot's, I do not understand, though, except Eliot, very few people could correctly use waves, though, at least, your time is analyzed somehow, at Gann the time analysis was not less important than all other, at Eliot's about time I have not especially heard. I do not understand a little, why all this pathos with the laws of the universe, the rainbow and its 6-7 points converging in the sacred truth, the golden ratio, note, the rainbow always has these points, and concrete, in adverza not always unambiguous, and in general why are there 6 points if the entire concept is based exactly line on 2 extrema? Narrowing the variance of incremental sizes, in other words. Stick at 2 extrema ... Who knows, maybe it can still be put into mathematics, I think Perelman is doing something similar now (approaching the causes of the world or something like that). Perhaps, here too, the authors did not reveal everything to the end.
4 - Have you thought about applying your stuff to other areas of science and technology? Like management of unpredictable flows or alternative types of energy or something else, in decay reactions, structurization of chaos and so on))))))))))) well where it is possible in short, I am not particularly strong, but it is interesting, especially mathematically you seem to be well versed and engaged in the analysis of complex things.
Why are you twisting the truth? What does SB have to do with it, I simply meant that it was discussed before the possibility of making money on SB, not quotes. Well, since you are so picky about the words, I'll call it a pseudo SB, because I haven't met and am unlikely to meet an idiosyncratically random series. What does it have to do with talking about the SB?
You boast of absence at opponents a proof of randomness, from proofs have only experimental results because the proof mathematical simply isn't present.
So how do you prove non-randomness yourself, because there is no limit to the number of experiments on which you base such questions.
Don't get upset!
I was referring to getting back to the topic of the thread. I thought you were saying the same thing.
I'll answer you point by point:
I won't say anything on the subject . If he wants to, let him answer for himself.
"1 - Am I correct in assuming that the end result must be some kind of general (extemporaneous) out-of-plan coincidence of conditions from different plans, i.e. some kind of generalising pattern that will connect the puzzle together?"
Yes.
"2 - Then the question is, what formations do inter-plan outcome patterns have?"
They take the form of Protoforms known (probably to you too).
"And also, imho, you should try to recalculate all plans with minimal discrete change, i.e. for example minute - start discretization, then recalculate every minute, if hour - then hour, forming absolutely all list of tf including non-standard 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m..."
For ticks, you may recalculate every tick. For weeks - once a week. It is enough.
Depends on who;)
"Except why wait for levels to execute when you can get the curve of the compaction itself."
That's probably the prerogative of a particular analysis and a particular strategy.
"3 - I think, that both wave mechanics and others always speak in general, but details are silent, probably, and Gann used your mythical "laws of the universe", but the secret was not fully revealed, so, the rubbish was laid out. How you differ from Eliot's, I do not understand, though, except Eliot, very few people could correctly use waves, though, at least, your time is analyzed somehow, at Gann the time analysis was not less important than all other, at Eliot's about time I have not especially heard. I do not understand a little, why all this pathos with the laws of the universe, the rainbow and its 6-7 points converging in the sacred truth, the golden ratio, note, the rainbow always has these points, and concrete, in adverza not always unambiguous, and in general why are there 6 points if the entire concept is based exactly line on 2 extrema? Narrowing the variance of incremental sizes, in other words. Stick at 2 extrema ... Who knows, maybe it can still be put into mathematics, I think Perelman is doing something similar now (approaching the causes of the world or something like that). Perhaps here too the authors didn't go all the way to the end."
Neither Gunn, nor the volnoviks, nor Perelman have not authorized me to speak for them or on their behalf. But I will not speculate what and who thought, whether he said everything, what he did not say.
"4 - Have you thought about applying your stuff to other areas of science and technology? Like management of unpredictable flows or alternative forms of energy or something else, in reactions of decay, structurization of chaos and so on))))))))))) where it is possible in short, I am not particularly strong, but it is interesting, the more mathematically you are apparently well versed and engaged in the analysis of complex things".
Yes, and that's what Multipoints wrote about - it's been tested and works wherever motion can be mapped as a series.
Thank you, at least you've responded here without tearing the rest of your brain apart)))) Hopefully there will be a chance to talk to you about topics that make your finger nails shrink by reciprocating jaw movements.
Regarding other areas. If it works, is there a patented invention (or technology based on it) that is based on this principle (or is it used in composition) that has already been invented? What is the potential of this I wonder.