neural network and inputs - page 30
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
Take this group... I mean, take it now and think about it - for example, I want to catch mash-ups. What are they going to do? They will go in and out guided by MA. Can we learn these points by building different MAs? We can. Why not do that and see what will happen at those moments. I.e., if we admit a priori the existence of GROUPS that will use MAs to enter and leave, we assume that the market will react at those moments. Further. There are a lot of MAs and they all have different periods. There will be a lot of groups. In fact, on each bar there will be some changes in the arrangement of forces.
About all this and MAs - the fish is probably not there, but I hope I've explained the logic.
Well you've honestly killed me with these phrases that you do not understand how to catch groups. "here's a chart of the currency pair - how? "Are you hungover?
You take any instrument, go through all the settings in the tester with a cry "I'll find you, band!" and get the same result as if you were stupidly testing the same instrument without any thought of a mythical band...........
You should work with a vector, not go through one by one
You have to work with a vector rather than going over it one by one
We'll take 2, 3, 4 wreckers and 5...50 wreckers for now, that'll be enough too. Just in case, we should build a channel around the waving from 0.1 sigma to 3 sigmas, which will also be enough for now. Further, strategies at a guess, intersection of bags, intersection of bags and price, price rebound from the bag, price breakout of the channel, price rebound from the channel. Multiply all this by the number of standard timeframes and then by the number of combinations of tamper periods. And I haven't even taken into account the session, news release, etc. Generally speaking, we may catch a group of fiddles at any price and substantiate this theoretically. Well, besides a wagon and a small cart of TA, there is also FA with a wagon and a small cart of different schools and beliefs.
Right, there are a lot of nuances. But you have to understand that I'm not giving you ready-made recipes. You have to think, a lot can be simplified, as it turns out in the development process... In general, you can run it all, I'm telling you from my own experience, it's a doable task. True, probably not MT. I use Matlab.
Take any vector of any instrument, bluntly go through all settings in the tester shouting "I'll find you, band!" and get the same result as if you bluntly tested the same vector of the same instrument without any thought of the mythical band...........
What if the vector has a size of 300, for example? Do you have to go through all 300 settings?
You take any vector of any instrument, bluntly go through all settings in the tester shouting "I'll find you, group!" and get the same result as if you had bluntly tested the same vector of the same instrument without any idea about the mythical group...........
there is another nuance. An important one that could help a lot. I wrote above. About the smoothness of the relationship between MA periods and "volumes". Think about it
What if the vector has a size of 300, for example? Should I go through all 300 settings?
Yes. And in case you assume there is some group - not so? Exactly the same. You have nothing but the assumption that there is a group.
What volumes?
Yes. And in case you assume there is a certain group - is there not? Exactly the same. Because you have nothing but the assumption that there is a group.
By what volume?
You're not reading carefully. That's why you're talking about overshoot. And I'm telling you that it's not a parameter, but a vector. Each group (MA=1, MA=2, MA=3, etc.) has its own volume of adherents. They run over to each other over time, but nevertheless a kind of GLAD curve is formed.
Anyway, I have two things to say to you guys:
1. I gave the MAs as an example. I do not use MAs for work, but other logical groups. I will not tell you which ones. I was simply asked to explain the logic of catching groups, so I told you. Thanks to me, by the way. And then begins - and tell and show all in detail. And this is not so, and this is not so. Yes, you have to sit down and think, so that everything was so and so.
2. I have the impression that I'm dragging an angry, stubborn donkey across the yard to the trough. The donkey's kicking, kicking, it's hot, I'm sweating all over. I'm dragging it and I think - what the hell do I need it for? Do I get money out of it? It's more like the opposite.) If someone gets something, then I'm only a minus.
Anyway, let's drop the subject. I've said all I want to say and more.
You're not reading carefully. That's why you talk about overshooting. And I am telling you that it is not a parameter, but a vector. Each group (MA=1, MA=2, MA=3 etc) has its own volume of adherents. They run over to each other over time, but nevertheless some sort of smooth curve is formed.
OK. There are two analyses:
1. we assume that there is a herd of nomadic traders in nature and the route of their migration runs through the mash-ups of different periods. We know nothing else about them - nothing at all.
2. We don't assume anything, but perform a dumb research of TUs in order to use them in TS construction.
Question - what is the difference between these two methods of analysis?
I don't understand the methodology - each trading method, and especially the mashki, is studied far and wide on testers in all its possible variants. The assumption of mythical groups may help a lot when constructing a TS, but only if something is known about the specifics of the trading of these groups - the time and day of opening positions or TFs, an indicator parameter and a currency pair or something else.
But if you do not know anything, then HOW can you figure out the mysterious group? HOW??? And how does the process of such calculation differ from a simple analysis of a particular instrument - MA, for example, methodologically???