What is a trend? - page 35
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
Also, a "trend" is when most people are losing.
And they are losing because they don't believe in the trend.
Thanks for the chat.
It's strictly the opposite :-) what we prefer to call a trend can be formulated as a goal:
Call itan "upward trend - a price movement in which the vast majority of buyers are on the upside". You can detail about these buyers "holding time, stop-loss, take-profit, value ranges, distributions", you can specify what is "the vast majority".
Nah. It's an intrigue. For a number of reasons.
For example. A ready-made answer elicits an unconstructive response. Here's an example: the post I responded to with a ready-made answer. So, for a second - atomic theory began to be created only 70-80 years before this paradox was formulated. Argumentative rebuttal. Full stop.
2) Although the dialogue is actually a direct reference to properties and attributes.
3) There is no contradiction. There are criteria for evaluation.
Let's say you make a nut in 1 hour and get 0.156 for it. How much will you get for 8?
ps and anyway. And talk?
You have a strange way of conducting dialogue. Constructive implies objectivity relevant to the subject. You are introducing "intrigue" into the dialogue - this can initially start to confuse your interlocutors.
Also, dialogue confusion is also facilitated by undisclosed answers, which you don't adequately disclose, and you should on the contrary avoid unnecessary questions (although nobody cares, also fair enough). I deliberately suggested using dry and dull formal language to avoid intrigue, conjecture and misunderstandings. This will make it more likely to define the problems and solve them, or to hammer away at the branch.
2)"Although the dialogue is actually a direct reference to properties and attributes." is another strange assertion, as it does not assert anything on the subject. Properties are properties, dialogue is dialogue. You can pass information about properties in a dialogue. But a dialogue is not an indication, it is just a dialogue.
3)"There is no contradiction. There are evaluation criteria." - Again strange. Evaluation is a test of the criteria and it is in no way relevant here. There is a clear statement and a clear sign, which is conditioned logically qualitatively - "movement on minutes forms in a month - movement on months".
According to the laws of logic, the properties of a small object extend to the properties of a large object consisting of these small ones. The movements of months are the same as the movements of minutes, for both months and minutes consist of the same ticks. And, as stated above, the trend on the month is a set of trends on the minutes. In other words, it is a principle of a matryoshka doll.
Therefore, when it is stated that "a trend is present in months, but not in minutes", the first thing to do is to define the concept "trend", or to describe it, i.e. to answer the question "what is it?
Constructive discussion is only possible if there is a subject to be discussed. Without a concept of what a "trend" is, there is no discussion. I introduced the notion of a "trend" into the discussion and defined it according to the observed phenomenon - the directional movement of price.
You said that there is no trend on the minutes, so you "cut off" the properties of parts from the whole. And then the most interesting thing begins:
Why?
And here we need to give a reasoned answer, using either the observed phenomena or the definition of the notion, which you are using. In our case it is "trend. Otherwise, - stagnation in the branch will continue (flat D)).
The most primitive, but still unrevealed (vaguely formal or something), is the ratio of mash-ups. This is how everyone defined themselves at the beginning of the journey, I think. Fast above slow - up trend and vice versa. Price above the slow - trending up and vice versa.
Then how do you determine the periods of the two waves? By brute force?
The periods will only increase or decrease the wave level. For example, on M15, a pair of EMA 5 and 20 by their intersection will show that there is a wave level (size, dimension, class) approximately on M15. And so on.
In other words, the size of the trend you want to monitor, set the period. Although, it is possible to simply switch between TFs. For the crossing of 5 and 20 EMA on H1 is the crossing of 20 and 80 EMA on M15.
You have a strange way of conducting a dialogue. Constructive implies objectivity pertaining to the subject matter. You are introducing "intrigue" into the dialogue - this can initially start to confuse your interlocutors.
Also, dialogue confusion is also facilitated by undisclosed answers that you don't adequately disclose so as not to raise unnecessary questions. I have deliberately suggested using dry and dull formal language in order to avoid intigs, guesses and misunderstandings. This will make it easier to identify the problems and solve them, or to get them out of the thread.
2)"Although the dialogue is actually a direct reference to properties and attributes." is another strange assertion, as it does not assert anything on the subject. Properties are properties, dialogue is dialogue. You can pass information about properties in a dialogue. But a dialogue is not an indication, it is just a dialogue.
3)"There is no contradiction. There are evaluation criteria." - Again strange. Evaluation is a test of the criteria and it is in no way relevant here. There is a clear statement and a clear sign, which is conditioned logically qualitatively - "movement on minutes forms in a month - movement on months".
According to the laws of logic, the properties of a small object extend to the properties of a large object consisting of these small ones. The movements of months are the same as the movements of minutes, for both months and minutes consist of the same ticks. And, as stated above, the trend on the month is a set of trends on the minutes. In other words, it is a principle of a matryoshka doll.
Therefore, when it is stated that "a trend is present in months, but not in minutes", the first thing to do is to define the concept "trend", or to describe it, i.e. to answer the question "what is it?
Constructive discussion is only possible if there is a subject to be discussed. Without a concept of what a "trend" is, there is no discussion. I introduced the notion of a "trend" into the discussion and defined it according to the observed phenomenon - the directional movement of price.
You said that there is no trend on the minutes, so you "cut off" the properties of parts from the whole. And then the most interesting thing begins:
Why?
And here we need to give a reasoned answer, using either the observed phenomena or the definition of the notion, which you are using. In our case it is "trend.
2) Apparently you should have written "in dialogue".
3) You deliberately left out the question "Let's say you make a nut in 1 hour and get 0.156 roubles for it. How much will you get for 8?"?
0.156 is your criterion, 0.16 is an accounting criterion.
A trend is a directional movement of price, yes. From where and to where?
The shape of the movement is generally a matter of tenths. Just as trend is not a primary concept in the understanding of the market.
2) Apparently you should have written "in dialogue".
3) You deliberately left out the question "Let's say you make a nut in 1 hour and get 0.156 roubles for it. How much will you get for 8?"?
0.156 is your benchmark, 0.16 is the accounting benchmark.
A trend is a directional movement of price, yes. From where and to where?
The shape of the movement is generally a matter of tenths. Just as trend is not a primary concept in the understanding of the market.
3) No, I just don't understand what this is all about. In relation to price movement.
"0.156 is your benchmark, 0.16 is the accounting benchmark."
Either you are confused about the concepts (0.156 is a quantity), or the question is not fully answered. You should reduce the concentration of riddles and conjecture, and write in substance. Only, as already said, in relation to the graph. As for this, it is up to you to tie together your thoughts, so we will come to something.
"A trend is a directional movement of price, yes. From where and to where?"
Up or down. Formally - from the extremum on the left side of the chart to the extremum on the right side of the chart. Within the selected period. You take any period, divide it in two parts and extrema of each part are compared (their positions with respect to each other). Thus we find out, what kind of candlestick (trend) from this part will turn out: a bullish or bearish. This is the way. I can do it again, but my brain is swimming from the main work, I cannot formulate it.
"The form of movement is a tenth matter. Just like trend is not a primary concept in understanding the market."
I never said anything about the shape of the movement. It really is a tenth thing (patterns). And the second part of the statement is a simple negation, in which it is desirable to give a proposition. Otherwise, it will go unnoticed simply because we haven't figured it out yet).
1 - A wave is also made up of parts, it's in the wiki.
2 - Two.
3 - For example, someone threw a brick into a swamp. Someone else threw it, a little later some more...
4 - Just the size. For example there is little liquidity in the market and another volume is "smeared" harder in the cup.
There is not one market maker in the market, and their actions are not always coordinated, not always unidirectional, and the market is common. The waves and trends are not always pretty as in the book of Elliot, but they are there and in 90% of cases they are easy to identify.
Scraps of thought. It is so hard to perceive what, why and to what: references, bare denials, associations. It's a long way from being formal.
VTE is a fantasy) Like Martin's IP, a book of constant murder and death... D)))3) No, I just don't get what this is all about. Applied to price movement.
"0.156 is your benchmark, 0.16 is the accounting benchmark."
Either you are confused about the concepts (0.156 is a quantity), or the question is not fully answered. You should reduce the concentration of riddles and conjecture, and write in substance. Only, as already said, in relation to the graph. As for this, it is up to you to put together your thoughts, so we will come to something.
4) "A trend is a directional movement of price, yes. From where and to where?"
Up or down. Formally - from the extremum on the left side of the chart to the extremum on the right side of the chart. Within the selected period. You take any period, divide it in two parts and extremums of each part are compared (their positions with respect to each other). Thus we find out, what kind of candlestick (trend) from this part will turn out: a bullish or bearish. This is the way. In this case, the algorithm is based on a combination of two general principles: "Form of movement" and "Form of trend".
5) "The form of movement is a tenth thing. As the trend is not a primary concept in understanding of the market."
The shape of the movement was never in question. It is really a matter of a decade (patterns).
6) But the second part of the statement is just a negation, in which it is desirable to give a proposition. Otherwise, it will remain unnoticed simply because we have not yet thought of it ourselves)
2) Towards measurement.
The minimum price the accounting department can pay you is 1 cent. One. Not the 4-5-6th decimal point, but one cent. A calibrated unit of measurement.
4) How about this: from one price level to another, driven by the interests of the major "holders" - states (unions) for currencies, corporations for commodity markets, etc.?
5) It was, about waves.
6) Go back to 2). Criteria. Because 4) is a purposeful movement.
Although, you can also just switch between TFs. For the crossing of 5 and 20 EMA on H1 is the crossing of 20 and 80 EMA on M15.
that is, let's take the minimum m1 timeframe.
what two timeframes should we take?
Maybe we should arrange some kind of optimization? the minimum value is 1, the maximum is 1000.
There! Let's drop the timeframes.
i.e. let's take the smallest timeframe m1.
What two timeframes should we take?
Maybe we should arrange some kind of optimisation?
The timeframe should be the smallest, anything higher is more of a trend statistic.