What is a trend? - page 31
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
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4
and read what it says: a trend is a general trend of something (in this case, price).
The trend can be described by various equations - linear, logarithmic, power, and so on.
I think the topic can be closed since everything you need to define a trend is in the wiki, and there is also an understanding of how a trend can be determined. If the current price movement fits the description of the logarithmic (or any other) formula of price movement, then we see a trend, otherwise, there is no trend.
Best regards.
Before you deny, you need to define the concept being operated on. Otherwise, it's a blind man's conversation with a deaf man.
Well, it's up to you...
Well, that's up to you...
My point is to get rid of fuzzy concepts. It would be more constructive if everyone could formulate their thoughts formally, albeit approximately. It's hard in fact, because a graph has no known open algorithm, and one has to learn it by oneself.
Let's start by looking at the wiki
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4
and read what it says: a trend is a general trend of something (in this case, price).
The trend can be described by various equations - linear, logarithmic, power, and so on.
I think the topic can be closed since everything you need to define a trend is in the wiki, and there is also an understanding of how a trend can be identified. If the current price movement fits the description of the logarithmic (or any other) formula of price movement, then we see a trend, otherwise, there is no trend.
Sincerely.
Not exactly. This is one thing that is written in the wiki, but it is another thing to collect the thought into a unified and understandable one.
The best (current) option would be an article about it on the mkl, in the context of Forex, and at the end of it, the indicator would be baked. After all, if according to your words, the wiki has everything (enough), the programmers will not have a problem to implement it all. They will rightly call it "objective trend" and "objective indicator".
Not really. Writing in the wiki is one thing, but putting the idea together in a coherent and understandable way is another.
The best option (relevant) is an article about it on the mkl, in the context of forex, and at the end of it, an indicator would have been banged up. After all, if according to your words, the wiki has everything (enough), then the programmers will not have a problem to implement it all.
Atrend is a unidirectional price movement. In fact, as soon as the price moves in the other direction, we see the change of trend at the smallest level - a tick.
Sincerely.
P.S. this article might have been interesting, but I don't see the point in writing articles at all. so please go to someone else with this question.
for me, there is no difference where price moves and so the concept of a trend comes down to one formulation.
In fact, as soon as the price moves in another direction, we see the change of trend at the smallest level, like a tick. Then, we form larger trends out of these small ones (calling them pullbacks) and so on.
Sincerely.
P.S. this article may have been interesting, but I do not see the point in writing articles, so please ask somebody else.
It is also important that the trends back and forth, obvious, sharp, without large corrections, but equal in size on a larger TF will look like a horizontal channel. Which is generally accepted as a flat. On a still longer TF it will be a horizontal line of price movement, i.e. there is nounidirectional price movement . And this property (of obligatory unidirectional price movements on each TF, i.e. - on each TF there should be at least one explicit trend) generates price consolidation spots (the nature of a flat, hence it appears as a phenomenon and answers the question "where does the horizontal movement come from, if price keeps going back and forth"). After all, it appears as if every TF is fighting for a trend and some of them are "waiting in line" (flatting) while other TFs are impulsing. We freely observe it in the terminal, switching by TF. After all, it is impossible to be trending in one direction at the same time on any scale.
And the fact that there is no difference, which way the price moves - so a successful trader will tell)))
What is also important is that trends back and forth, obvious, sharp, without large corrections, but of equal size on a larger TF will look like a horizontal channel. Which is generally accepted as a flat. On an even longer TF it will be a horizontal line of price movement, i.e. there is no unidirectionalprice movement . And this property (of obligatory unidirectional price movements on each TF) generates places of price consolidation (the nature of the flat, hence it appears as a phenomenon and answers the question "where does the horizontal movement come from, if the price is constantly going back and forth").
And the fact that there is no difference where the price moves - so a successful trader will tell you)))
Regards.
...pure price movement with no bar division over time, and perhaps this is more correct than putting in a parameter that has nothing to do with price.
There's something to this...
Well, if there is a change in price, then the presence of a trend is certain, but how long and volatile it will be is another matter. But if the price rose and then returned to the original price, then it does so with trends, as a change relative to the price scale...
In fact, I thought it was OK to use what is there.
So the trends are there, they exist by themselves, and the price may or may not use them.
That's fine.
Before you deny it, you need to define the concept being operated on. Otherwise, it's a blind man's conversation with a deaf man.
From the technical point of view, looking at a piece of asphalt with a magnifying glass, we may think that we are looking at a road.
In fact, what we discern there won't even be of interest to a cyclist.
Trends on ticks, n-minutes, clocks are pseudo-scientific fiction.