From theory to practice - page 1940
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
Are you completely retarded?
Why again:A cross rate is the ratio of the exchange rates of two currencies to a third.
Is there really such a thing?
I asked you if the statement EURUSD = EURXXX/USDXXX equals how many currencies there are?
Is there really such a thing?
I asked you if the statement EURUSD = EURXXX/USDXXX equals how many currencies there are?
Bad habit, persistence in ignorance
I don't want to go on. If you can't answer the question, go away, Vasya.
Back to the origins of the branch.
The method of sum of increments in the sliding window with returning to the average (zero) when the dispersion levels touch in the quantitative ratio of profitable and negative trades gives a sure advantage of positive forecasts, but if you count by profit, on the contrary - in the moments of trends you get big losses, which in total cover all profits.
There are two variants of events development (for buying and selling):
1. Sum of increments in the sliding window < 0 and < confidence level = buy entry. Further the sum of increments comes to zero we have profit.
2. Sum of increments in the sliding window < 0 and < confidence level = buy entry. Then the sum of increments comes to zero - we have a heavy loss.
At first glance the two cases seem to be identical, but then why is there a loss in the second one?
It is easier to show the situation if we operate with binary increments equal to +- 1.
For example, moving observation window n = 5. Then it is not difficult to understand that the maximal sum of increments will be equal to +-5.
Then there are two variants of events.
1. Sum of increments in the sliding window < 0 = -5 and < confidence level = buy entry. If the sum of increments comes to zero for less than two periods (2*n) we have a profit. If the return in one period profit = +5 etc.
2. In the second case, having met the trend, the sum of increments in the sliding window will "sink" and in the best case will return to the zero position in two periods, then the profit will be = 0, in three periods = loss -5, four periods = loss -10, etc.
If we take regular increments, instead of +-1, the meaning is the same.
What conclusions can be drawn: if we get to a trend (in variant 2 of events), then return to the average will be anyway, as the sum of increments in the sliding window will tend to zero. Then to enter a trade it is necessary to calculate this moment, instead of opening the order at once, but "it is already other story".
It does not follow from the fact that the amount of increments returns to the average that the price will also return to the average.
It's just that the author of this thread can't get away with it, it's been three years now.
It does not follow from the fact that the sum of the increments returns to the average that the price will also return to the average.
It does. The question is when, in the sense of a pullback to the moving average. It is just that on a stationary chart the average does not shift, unlike on a price chart.
It means that we should not enter immediately when the sum of level increments will be reached, because we may run into a trend. We need to start watching the price from this point and predict when the pullback will start.It should. The question is when, in the sense of a pullback to the moving average. It's just that on a stationary chart the average does not shift, unlike on a price chart.
It means that we should not enter immediately when the sum of level increments is reached, so we can get into a trend. We need to start watching the price from this point and predict when the pullback will start.There is no such level.
If there was, it would have been used a long time ago.
Back to the origins of the branch.
The method of sum of increments in the sliding window with returning to the average (zero) when the dispersion levels touch in the quantitative ratio of profitable and negative trades gives a sure advantage of positive forecasts, but if you count by profit, then on the contrary - in the moments of trends you get big losses, which in total cover all profits.
There are two variants of events development (for buying and selling):
1. Sum of increments in the sliding window < 0 and < confidence level = buy entry. Further the sum of increments comes to zero we have profit.
2. Sum of increments in the sliding window < 0 and < confidence level = buy entry. Then the sum of increments comes to zero - we have a heavy loss.
At first glance the two cases seem to be identical, but then why is there a loss in the second one?
It is easier to show the situation if we operate with binary increments equal to +- 1.
For example, moving observation window n = 5. Then it is not difficult to understand that the maximal sum of increments will be equal to +-5.
Then there are two variants of events.
1. Sum of increments in the sliding window < 0 = -5 and < confidence level = buy entry. If the sum of increments comes to zero for less than two periods (2*n) we have a profit. If the return in one period profit = +5 etc.
2. In the second case, having met the trend, the sum of increments in the sliding window will "sink" and in the best case will return to the zero position in two periods, then the profit will be = 0, in three periods = loss -5, four periods = loss -10, etc.
If we take regular increments, instead of +-1, the meaning is the same.
What conclusions can be drawn: if we get to a trend (in variant 2 of events), then return to the average will be anyway, as the sum of increments in the sliding window will tend to zero. Then to enter the trade it is necessary to calculate this moment, instead of opening the order at once, but "it is already other story".