From theory to practice - page 1089
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
interesting
is the price the same?
Different. There's a 1-10 point difference in the five digits. Total unsynchronisation...
Different. A difference of 1 to 10 points on the five digits. Total misalignment...
within the spread?
well... this is understandable and not surprising at all.
Make the ticks by timer, with the period you need.
you will have valid ask and bid, but you need to normalise them
and in the trading conditions you need to select an account where trade orders are placed on the side of the terminal, not on the execution side
Albert and Minkowski were working in Lorentzian space-time coordinates. I suppose we should do the same in the market - and then we will see a very different picture of the process...
we won't see shit.
Albert and Minkowski did not work with strictly (by nature) discrete quantities and variable metrics.
Well, the habits of physics don't apply here. Habits are useful, but everything else has to be discarded.
ZS. And once again, the volume of the market (not volume, just volume) is growing at least 6% per year. That's a crazy figure, which breaks all the ideas of the university department :-) Your habits here lead to losses
Yes, I think you're right, Bas.
However, there is an opinion that if you go to two-dimensional Minkowski space, i.e.
introduce the following coordinates for tick dimensions (synchronized between different DCs).
The X axis is a uniform scale of event counts (1, 2, ...)
Y axis - value S^2=(Tn-Tn-1)^2+(PRICEn-PRICEn-1)^2
where (Tn-Tn-1) is the time between the current and previous ticks, (PRICEn-PRICEn-1) is the increment between the current and previous prices
you can get a very interesting picture...
what are you thinking?
Take and count the cumulative component of BUY or SELL, by this principle Normalizedouble( (Mathmin()/Mathmax() * (+-1 depending on Max-value) ) *100,2);
and you'll get both normalization and accurate values, and there'll be no need to optimize anything at all)
Erm... Well, that's +10-15% a month. And over a year, on an accumulating deposit with no withdrawal, that's what it came to. No?
That's 50 per month (on average).
That's 50 a month (on average).
Just move the trend line and life gets better.
take this Normalizedouble(Mathmin()/Mathmax() * (+-1 depending on Max-value) ) *100,2);
and you will get normalization and accurate values - and there will be no need to optimize anything at all)
You have one parenthesis missing.
550/12=?
45.8
That's 50 a month (on average).
If so, I withdraw all my charges against you and apologise.
From now on, I'm a lapdog and a collective farmer. But only here, in our dimension. I'm going for a walk in Minkowski space... The Grail and Schrodinger's runaway cat are over there.