From theory to practice - page 130
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
No, I don't know, Dimitri, what to do in such a case. It's to the age-old question of collecting all the ticks in a row. There are people on some threads here struggling to accept literally EVERYTHING, right down to coming in packets. Well, that's the question for them - what is it and how to deal with it?
yeah... "the great one"...
You're the one who embarrassed the physics community with your passages! And you're also a slandererer...
I'm not a whistleblower, I'm doing you a favour - I'm asking the moderators to do a good deed by sending you out to do good to society - to the factory. You should work in the sweat of your brow, wiping down instrumentation with alcohol day and night. It is a useful and God-pleasing job to work for the state, literally stumbling around from fatigue and alcohol.
It smells bad. :(
I am not a slanderer, I am doing you a favour by asking the moderators to do a good deed by sending you out to do good to society - to the factory. You should work in the sweat of your brow, wiping clean the instrumentation with alcohol day and night. It is a useful and God-pleasing thing to work for the state, literally stumbling around from fatigue and alcohol.
You're not just a slanderer, you're also a cheeky liar.
It smells bad. :(
So don't spoil it, especially when you're a guest.
the cow's mooing...
No, the main thing is all sorts of machine guns come and spoil the air. And the author in his own thread-bad smells at once. At the same machine gun can come and with a clear conscience gas in his branch exactly the same, and even more. With respect to his verbiage, the darkness of failed experiments with unfounded assertions beforehand, and so on. This thread, too, has lost interest for me. But if we're talking about equality in the right to say what one wants. Then how is he any worse than the same non-smart guy as a local. The number of books read does not indicate the quality of their understanding. You can read a lot and be a fool. Or you can successfully apply the knowledge from one. So it is not known who is more of a verbber hiding behind ambiguous definitions.
Here's where I agree. Even though I am inept (I am really new to forex), but to suspect me, a man who has devoted his whole life to physics, of some manipulation is simply impossible to read. And even though I have no results yet - but people who read this thread, anyway, have discovered something new for themselves. In fact, that's enough for me.
All right, there's nothing more to talk about.
Despite the fact that the thread has been riddled with feeble-minded subjects, I will continue it and bring it to a logical conclusion.
This week I have connected 20 currency pairs to trade. Because I had no time to calculate volumes of selection for each pair and there were no helper in the forum - I set selection for all pairs = 13000 ticks. Of course, it is wrong, but OK.
Let's go trades! There were two of them today.
The first one was positive:
The second was negative:
Immediately striking is that the sample volume = 13,000 ticks is small.
Total profit so far = 112 pips
I have come across a new trading method (written on futures) on which there is even an entire book https://kroufr.ru/forum/index.php?topic=25559.0;topicseen. What I find essential for this thread is the approach underlying the method: in which direction it is profitable for the DC to shift prices now. This is the first time I've encountered a method based on modelling DC behaviour. Since Alexander hardly and not at once believed that every brokerage company gives its own ticks, and now he is still wondering "why do brokerage companies distort real ticks" - here is a picture from the message at the link above: