From theory to practice - page 176
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
Yes, Ilnur, I'm a little weak at the moment. I'm worn out from my own hustle and bustle... Everything seems to be on track, but something's not right, anyway... Or else, when someone bursts onto the front stage and shouts something like: "You're all fools here, and I'm the smart one! Tick quotes should be taken this way and that way and there's nothing to think about!" Now that would be cool and I'd be back on my feet.
This all reminds me of the inventor of the perpetual motion machine from Shchukino's graduation play, The Proletarian Happiness Mill. He used to go around lamenting that he needed a little more oil, and then everything would start spinning for sure.
Well, happiness isn't in the form of distributions or ticks at all. As the saying goes: rubbish in, rubbish out.
If it's not in the distributions, then this whole branch should be torn down... I disagree!!!
As for the ticks... That word alone already makes me nervous, or in simple terms, pissed off. The fact that my broker's real and non-demo ticks are completely different, and I have not found any correlation between them, indicates that the case is not clear. I can't strictly formalise the decision about the method of data reception. And since it is so, I will ALWAYS have doubts about the correctness of the algorithm to solve the problem as a whole.
Why on earth would anyone help you. So that later you could post it on the net under your name. Somebody who knows where to dig must be suicidal to do that to himself. And if he is suicidal, he'd rather be suicidal-D'Art-m himself and show the world this miracle. Than be a suicidal idiot. By letting you become D'Art. That makes sense. Here you, pretend to be a physicist, but you have no logic, even in such elementary things. You've killed the whole point of helping you with your own pitch.)
Well, I'm not pretending in the first place. And secondly, God be with my dark past and present.
The question is, why does this forum even exist? Isn't it to help each other? Or just to sell each other signals? Is that it?
For example, I have read almost all the articles on this forum and I have not found phrase like "when receiving tick quotes according to such and such algorithm ...." and so on. So the conclusion is that you shouldn't read all the articles, the authors don't understand what they write.
Well, I'm not pretending in the first place. And secondly, God be with my dark past and present.
The question is, why does this forum even exist? Isn't it to help each other? Or just to sell each other signals? Is that it?
The more experienced people here have written a thousand times that with your scale of transactions is quite enough and a minute))))) You can try to re-read your own thread from the very first page, more carefully))))
I personally can run your bollinger even on ticks, that's not the point, not even close) if the price moves tens of points from the entry point in a few hours, it makes no difference what it was doing there on the ticks) it's like driving a car and being interested in the behavior of grains of sand on the road)
If it's not in distributions, then this whole branch should be torn down... I disagree!!!
Tics, on the other hand... That word alone already makes me nervous, or in simple terms, pisses me off. The fact that my broker's real and non-demo ticks are completely different, and I have not found any correlation between them, indicates that the case is not clear. I can't strictly formalise the decision about the method of data reception. And since it is so, I will ALWAYS have doubts about the correctness of the algorithm for solving the problem as a whole.
1. Do not work on a demo, but on a real account. There is such a thing as a virtual transaction. It does not ask for porridge, except for logging.
If not in distributions - then this whole branch should be torn down... I disagree!!!
Not in the form of distributions. Completely unnecessary attention to this nonsense.
Collecting and handling ticks is beyond my meagre comprehension. Especially in such untold quantities.
It's like driving a car and wondering how grains of sand behave on the road.)
Mm-hmm.)
For example, I have re-read almost all the articles on this forum and I have not found the phrase like "when receiving tick quotes according to such and such algorithm ...." and so on. Hence the conclusion - all the articles should not be read at all, the authors do not understand what they write.
Hence the opposite conclusion - the algorithm for receiving tics has no meaning, since no one uses it)))
p.s. I, for example, did not find a word about sorts of oranges in any article on quantum physics)) So, one may not read articles on quantum physics, the authors themselves do not understand what they write)))
The more experienced people have already written a thousand times here that with your scale of transactions is quite enough and a minute)))) You can try to re-read your own thread from the very first page, more carefully))))
I personally can run your bollinger even on ticks, that's not the point, not even close) if the price moves tens of points from the entry point in a few hours, it makes no difference what it was doing there on the ticks) it's like driving a car and being interested in the behavior of grains of sand on the road)
I remember that... It's just a shame - so much time wasted on those ticks... Got hooked on them by reading neighbouring threads where people were shaking with the urge to read ticks every 1 millisecond.
My calculations turned out to be worthless, because I hadn't done it yet. All my calculations turned out to be useless, I have to work with samples more than 16384, which VisSim doesn't allow, etc. etc.
Hence the opposite conclusion - the ticking algorithm is irrelevant, since no one uses it)))
I agree with you. I've been struggling with this for 3 months now - there's no reason to claim that receiving each tick is more correct than receiving data, say, after 10 seconds, etc. It's not proven by anyone or anything.
I remember that... It's just a pity - so much time wasted on these ticks... I got hooked on them by reading neighbouring threads, where people were shaking with the desire to read ticks every 1 millisecond.
My calculations turned out to be worthless, because I hadn't done it yet. All my calculations turned out to be useless, I have to work with samples more than 16384, which VisSim doesn't allow, etc. etc.
There is an acute dependence on someone else's opinion, coupled with an inability to perceive anything else at the same time. Apparently, no more than one thought fits in your head.)