From theory to practice - page 319
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
Child!
Been busy - couldn't actively participate in the forum. Now re-reading the current hot topics - horror.
You can't do that. Total stupidity cannot lead to success. It is clear to everyone except participants of this forum.
Completely baffled by your obtuseness,
Your Alexander_K.
Child!
Been busy - couldn't actively participate in the forum. Now re-reading the current hot topics - horror.
You can't do that. Total stupidity cannot lead to success. It is clear to everyone except participants of this forum.
Completely baffled by your obtuseness,
your Alexander_K.
How long since you looked in the mirror?
Have you looked in the mirror lately?
Yuri, well, that doesn't apply to you - it's not like you're spinning off new silly topics.
Once again, the Wiener process model with drift is of help to ALL. But, it must be accompanied by some coefficient - Hurst, asymmetry, non-entropy, etc. Who has worked in this direction - throw in a link to real, practical research. This is what is currently holding me back on the path to the Grail.
No need to rush, New Year is not yet upon us))
:)))) Yuri, it literally pisses me off when, well, everything works except for one single parameter. I don't know what that parameter is. And no one writes about it. Is it normal?
I can officially confirm that the asymmetry coefficient by itself does not work.
That leaves Hearst and non-entropy. Okay, I can do my own research on non-entropy. But Hearst? Is it difficult to drop a link to studies where it is unambiguously confirmed that Hirst does not work either???
:)))) Yuri, it literally pisses me off when, well, everything works except for one single parameter. I don't know what that parameter is. And no one writes about it. Is it normal?
It should be. So just scrap it all, and start from the beginning. From the basics.
Science is not science. And that's where you come in.)
By the way, the 9% I showed this month is actually on a pure Wiener process. Now I'm looking at the models - if I added another coefficient it would be much higher.
Alas, there don't seem to be any physicists or mathematicians left on this forum... Sadly... Ugh.