From theory to practice - page 165

New comment
 
Alexander_K2:

Understanding, that's what I'm missing. In quantum physics, there is no such thing as price! But according to you, there is. That's where I'm confused...

The stupor is solved quite simply: quantum physics has nothing to do with the market structure) similarly to the opera house - ballerinas there also rotate around the centre of mass, but this knowledge is useless for the market).
 
Alexander_K2:
This distribution of increments is clearly "wobbly" with respect to 0.
The point is that your zero itself also shakes, or rather shifts. Apply at last the principle of relativity of motion)
 
bas:

I guess the market works a little differently than you might think)

"Customisation" is not scientific. The scientific approach is to study the real workings of things, not to mindlessly draw formulas from an entirely different field (=create fiction), however contrived those formulas may be.


++100500

That's the best answer I've heard in years to academics who venture into a field that's not their own.

 
Alexander_K2:

Yes, the idea is good - no doubt about it. But, somehow, there's something missing... А! Understanding, that's what I'm missing. You're banging out programs based on price, I'm banging out a wave function. And Feynman based on what? That's right, the wave function. In quantum physics, there's no such thing as price. But according to you, there is. That's where I get confused...

Stop reading student books and using student distributions. It's time to think for yourself.

Where in quantum mechanics is price, and where in the market are wave functions? Time to wake up).

 
Dmitriy Skub:
Alexander, how about using the fractality index (Hurst coefficient)? As a filter.
Do these very fractals really exist? It's like - something always looks like something (from a cartoon).
 
Yuriy Asaulenko:
Do these same fractals really exist? It's like - what-is-always-similar (from a cartoon).
Do stereotypes exist in the behaviour of market participants? At different levels.
 
Dmitriy Skub:
And there are stereotypes in the behavior of market participants? At different levels.

Maybe they exist, I don't know. But they are not so simple and synchronous as to form some kind of fractals. And in hindsight you can see anything you want - no problem at all.

I will add.

1. The market is basically effective. In other words, there are no signs that allow you to make a profit.

2. it follows from item 1, that the market is random for an observer. Whether it is accidental or non-accidental in fact, is of no importance.

3. it follows from the point 2 that we can work on the basis of properties of the market as a random process.

 

Nevertheless, friends, this week's profit =+10% and would have been more if not for this disgraceful trend. I will try to apply Hearst to identify it.

 
Alexander_K2:

Nevertheless, friends, this week's profit =+10% and would have been more if not for this disgraceful trend. I will try to apply Hearst to define it.

This is not a statistic.

Dawkins, in his lectures, demonstrated very well the possibility of more than such accidents).

 
Yuriy Asaulenko:

Maybe they exist, I don't know. But they are not so simple and synchronous as to form some kind of fractals. And in hindsight you can see anything you want - no problem at all.

I will add.

1. The market is basically effective. In other words, there are no signs that allow you to make a profit.

2. it follows from item 1, that the market is random for an observer. Whether it is accidental or non-accidental in fact, is of no importance.

(3) It follows from (2) that we can operate based on the properties of the market as a random process.

I have a different model of the market (not forex). And it works every day).
1...158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172...1981
New comment