Thoughts on the random - page 14
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
A filter is a functional transducer. A well-designed filter not only removes noise, but also extracts a lot of useful information that is present in the data, but hidden and not directly accessible.
You cannot like or dislike a filter - on the contrary, you can use it correctly or incorrectly.
But of course, a filter is not the same as a filter ;)) And if some piece of shit is called a filter, it does not become a filter. Accordingly the attitude of love/dislike to such an artifact appears ;)))
open a top and give an invest account password or print the trades with entry, TP, SL and trade omm.
If it's not forbidden here, it's fine...
The direction of the future position will be determined by the value of the Excel PRNG. Position volume - by TC parameters.
The signal will be laid out in advance... The signal will be laid out in advance in the form of pending orders at a distance of 20 (for example) points (4 signs) to both sides of the current quote value, so that everyone would be able to keep up with it. When one is triggered - the second is immediately removed.
If you have a preference for a currency pair - order it. If not - it will be the Eurobucks...
So OK...
The view of the market as a purely random phenomenon is wrong, fundamentally wrong. But the approaches to its understanding and description based on probabilities and randomness depend on this view, the primary reference point, so to speak, hence the skewness associated with the priority of statistical tools which cannot be an adequate tool to reflect the essence, mechanics, of the phenomenon in question. Yes, randomness is present, but its role is far from dominating.
By the way, I didn't want to present the market in this thread as an absolutely random process, but, apparently, the title of the topic and the attempt to calculate the probability based on the notion of a random process have done their job. But I do believe and have some evidence that the market is not random and cognitive.
Take for example my experiment(https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/141651/page6) with learning to predict quotes using just my eyes and brain: I ended up with the last 3000 guesses being on average 50.5-51% correct. That's not to say that it's not a random result, the mere fact that I came out with no value greater than 50% says something.
Take for example my experiment(https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/141651/page6) with learning to predict quotes using just my eyes and brain: I ended up with the last 3000 guesses being on average 50.5-51% correct. That's not to say that it's not a random result, the mere fact that I came out not more than 50% says something.
Demi:
Moreover, even if on 3000 guesses you were 99% correct on average, that too could be a completely random result.Это вообще ни о чем не говорит.
1 - yes
2 - yes? I mean, what then is the Criterion?
2 - right?
Of course. Even if the market is completely random, even then you can guess correctly out of 10,000 all 10,000. And here"the last 3,000 guesses have averaged 50.5-51% correct" ....
And the whole series gave what percentage of correct guesses?
Of course. Even if the market is completely random, even then you can guess correctly out of 10,000 all 10,000. And here"the last 3,000 guesses have averaged 50.5-51% correct."....
And the whole series had what percentage of correct guesses?
The whole series is in the neighborhood of 50%. The last 3,000 trials are 50.5-51%.
Wait a minute. Do you really believe that I can Guess 9999 out of 10000 correct directions the first time? The probability of that is almost zero (but not 0). There's no such thing, colleague. Not in our lifetime.
PS: I cannot understand on what level to conduct a dialogue with you, colleague. How do you look at the testing of hypotheses by statistical methods?
The whole series is in the region of 50%. The last 3,000 trials are 50.5-51%.
Wait a minute (C). Do you really believe that I can Guess 9999 out of 10,000 right directions the first time? The probability of that is almost zero (but not 0). There's no such thing, colleague. Not in our lifetimes.
Not only does it happen, but it happens in our world all the time.
You've written it right, BUT.....
Instead of doing 1000 experiments in the hope of obtaining required 50,5 - 51% in one of them, imagine that there are 1000 traders (they don't know about each other), each of whom makes ONE experiment. And now ONE of them has got 50.5 - 51% in his FIRST experiment. He looks at the result and says to himself - this cannot be a coincidence, as it happened in the first experiment (he does not know about the others)!