Analyse the most important STATISTICAL characteristics of the pattern and choose a method of trading on it. - page 5
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
There's no classical thechanalysis, there's a multi-fractal model of asset returns (yes, yes, there is such a model too, I didn't just invent it). this model can be attributed to statistical models. There are no specific fixed patterns. There is a result that can be represented as a pattern, nothing more.
Classical technical analysis is the graphical analysis of price figures. That is, it is not a set of specific "classical" figures, but the analysis of "products" of seeing when the focus of human gaze changes. The analyzed parameter can be anything. It can be price, volume, open interest or a parameter from the set of statistical indicators. All these values "draw" curves as they change. These curves can be analyzed graphically ("by eye"), or using different mathematical filters. The automation of graphical analysis, is the automation of analysis "by eye", which changes the focus and moves between the segments of the curve to see new and new shapes.
Patterns are a product of human perception, dating back to the days when charts were printed in printing presses and trend lines were drawn on rulers.
So, the classical technical analysis is undoubtedly present in your developed approach. )
Next time, do not immediately state that someone's opinion is "bullshit", but get to the bottom of it first.
P.S. If"prediction pattern" has graphical expression, then its analysis is necessarily related to classical technical analysis and the automation of recognizing the variety of its graphic phenomena is the automation of one of the systems of this very classical technical analysis.
So, classical technical analysis is undoubtedly present in the approach you are developing. )
Not in any form. Once again :) at the output we get a time series, which may or may not be represented as a pattern either by eye or statistically. And one more point - I'm not sure that it works at all, so if you consider it as classical tehanalysis and it won't work then there's no contradiction at all :)
Once again :) At the output we get a time series that may or may not be represented as a pattern either by eye or statistically. And one more thing - I'm not sure that it works at all, so if you take it as classical technoanalysis and it doesn't work there will be no contradictions at all :)
All the signs of prejudice are there. :)
Either you understand the concept of "classical technical analysis" too narrowly or I understand it too widely.
As I have already told, in my understanding the classical technical analysis, is the graphic analysis of segments of curves allocated by a human sight and conclusion of conclusions on the basis of supervision and generalization of regularities of mutual transitions and transformations of figures. Visual "curves" of value changes can belong to any possible parameters and are not bound only to the price. The automation of any approach, which operates by imitating the human's gaze focus, is the automation of graphical technical analysis.
imho.
All the signs of prejudice are there. :)
Either you understand the concept of "classical technical analysis" too narrowly or I understand it too widely.
As I have already told, in my understanding the classical technical analysis, is the graphic analysis of segments of curves allocated by a human sight and conclusion of conclusions on the basis of supervision and generalization of regularities of mutual transitions and transformations of figures. Visual "curves" of value changes can belong to any possible parameters and are not bound only to the price. The automation of any approach which operates by imitating the human gaze focus is the automation of graphical technical analysis.
imho.
No, classic technical analysis is what has entered the classics. Elliott Waves, trend lines, charting figures, moving averages, some indicators, etc. All the rest is just the analysis, while mathematical models are more of a mathematical analysis than a thechanalysis. There are no crossover points, even if you try, you cannot find them.
No, classical thechanalysis is what went into the classics. Elliott Waves, trend lines, chart patterns, moving averages, some indicators, etc. All the rest is just the analysis, while mathematical models are more of a mathematical analysis than a thechanalysis. The points of intersection, even if you try, cannot be found.
You are dividing the concepts too much. It is better to summarise those that converge in essence so as not to create unnecessary entities. But, these are different ways of thinking.
So, you think Elliott Waves, moving averages, trend lines and many other things belong to "classic technical analysis", and the rest is "simple technical analysis"? What do you think "just technical analysis" and "mathematical analysis" mean when it comes to trading? Isn't it a figment of the fantasy of naive "grail-seekers", supported by the ignorant and spread "undeveloped"? Where is the evidence for the effectiveness of the approaches mentioned? (Damn, I keep forgetting the tester!!! :) ).
Isn't this a sign of arrogant and uneducated "nerds"?
Once again, is there enough evidence of the ineffectiveness of classical technical analysis (including trends, levels, averages, etc...) that would confirm the correctness of putting them in the trash? Has anyone managed to properly program the recognition of levels, trends, flotsam? I think all the patterns are recognized in a very primitive and low-quality way. If you point me to algorithms that are great at finding a flat on any part of history, I'll admit I'm wrong.
You are dividing the concepts too much. It is better to summarise those that converge in essence so as not to create unnecessary entities. But, these are different ways of thinking.
So you think Elliott Waves, moving averages, trend lines, and many other things belong to "classic technical analysis", and the rest is "simple technical analysis"? What do you think "classic technical analysis" and "mere technical analysis" do? What is "just technical analysis" and "mathematical analysis" when it comes to trading? Isn't it a figment of the fantasy of naive "grail-seekers", supported by the ignorant and spread "undeveloped"? Where is the evidence for the effectiveness of said approaches? (Damn, I keep forgetting the tester!!! :) ).
Isn't this a sign of arrogant and uneducated "nerds"?
Once again, is there enough evidence of the ineffectiveness of classical technical analysis (including trends, levels, averages, etc...) that would confirm the correctness of putting them in the trash? Has anyone managed to properly program the recognition of levels, trends, flotsam? I think all the patterns are recognised very primitively and poorly. If you point me to algorithms that are great at finding a flat on any part of history, I'll admit I'm wrong.
You should admit at once that you are wrong, so as not to waste your time :) find for yourself at least one proof of TA efficiency, sort of use it as a starting point. Separate into categories to avoid confusion, otherwise you can reduce everything to a finger pressing a key, following this logic... After all, one still presses the buttons in the end
Has anyone been able to program levels, trends, and flotsam properly? In my opinion, all patterns are recognised very primitively and poorly. If you point me to algorithms that are great at finding a flat on any part of history, I'll admit I'm wrong.
What levels, what trends and flat? Do you even understand what you are writing about? Just like you won't find a pair of identical labels of Elliott Waves, you won't find the same definition of some mythical trends and flat, which are detected only after the fact.
Let's get to the heart of our dialogue: you stated categorically that classical technical analysis techniques do not work in trading. That they are unprofitable. I suggested you prove it using programming and the tester as a tool. For this purpose you need to program the methods of classical technical analysis, create a strategy based on them and run in the Strategy Tester on historical data.
You cannot properly program not a single pattern - neither flat, nor trend, nor Elliot waves, not even levels - but meanwhile you groundlessly argue that it's all nonsense.
P.S. If you can't prove in the tester that classical technical analysis is nonsense - don't say it is useless for algorithmic trading.
Look up my nearest neighbour indicator in the codebase. The method is pretty simple. You set the length of the current pattern, find similar patterns from history (e.g. use correlation as distance between patterns), predict future price behaviour from past patterns by weighting their individual predictions. This is essentially the same as clustering, or RBF, or SVM, or GRNN. It all depends on how you measure the distance from the current pattern to similar past patterns. Read about GRNN and Bayes. There the prediction theory is described in terms of statistical distributions. There is a lot written about GRNN and the above mentioned prediction methods and it all boils down to one simple formula:
prediction y = SUM y[k]*exp(-d[k]/2s^2) / SUM exp(-d[k]/2s^2)
where y[k] is the k-th past pattern, d[k] is the distance from k-th pattern to the current pattern. If distances have Gaussian distribution then d[k] = (x - x[k])^2. For an arbitrary (super Gaussian) distribution, d[k] = |x - x[k]|^p, where you choose p depending on whether you want to give more weight to the closest neighbours (large p), or give all neighbours nearly the same weight (small p) as in socialism. With p=0, we have total socialism.
After getting acquainted with the nearest neighbours and GRNN, the next obvious question arises. How to measure distance between current pattern and past patterns if you take into account time axis distortions (i.e. past patterns may look like current pattern but either stretched or compressed in time). This is where the dog is buried.
Hello, nice to see you. If you are still interested in the subject and are willing to work sluggishly (I'm going to the dacha tomorrow), I would like to offer cooperation.
I am a ctn in cybernetics, but old and long idle. Not a programmer, but I can. Not a radio operator.
Let's get to the heart of our dialogue: you stated categorically that classical technical analysis techniques do not work in trading. That they are unprofitable. I suggested you prove it using programming and the tester as a tool. For this purpose you need to program the methods of classical technical analysis, create a strategy based on them and run in the Strategy Tester on historical data.
You cannot properly program not a single pattern - neither flat, nor trend, nor Elliot waves, not even levels - but meanwhile you groundlessly argue that it's all nonsense.
P.S. If you can't prove in the tester that classical technical analysis is nonsense - don't say that it is useless for algorithmic trading.
Do not tell me what to claim and I will not tell you what classic technical analysis you should do. But i will agree with one thing - i am not capable of high quality programming of who knows what.