Exploring the Graal. "The 'tester grail' only works on the tester. And how to make an online chart become like a tester chart. Or - page 15
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
You're pushing the envelope again.
That's right, you can't catch a fish out of the pond without work.
It does not matter what kind of analysis system you have, it does not matter how your robot opens and closes orders, it does not matter at all how you or the robot see the market.
All that matters is that your robot should make a profit after a day, week, month, year, 10 years, etc. and not lose it.
That's it.
This is the grail as you call it.
I don't care if you open one deal and wait a month.
If you make a profit, you make it guaranteed.
It makes no sense to torture yourself or others for years. You either take a risk and earn hundreds percent a month from kopecks, nets, or whatever, or you make a stable and guaranteed 50-100% a year from millions.
The essence of the market is its structure and I have not seen anyone on this forum who understands this essence as I do, calculating it mathematically.
But that does not mean that no one else can make money. No.
I'm just a more reliable trader, that's all. I'm always on the same wavelength as the market. I always catch the strongest and biggest pieces. My positions are always in the most advantageous place in relation to market movements.
But the upshot is that you don't really need it.
Why should you spend a lot of years doing something that you will probably never achieve? Why would you develop thousands of trading robots, study statistics and extract the essence of your trading robot by rote?
There are very few crazy people like me who can spend years studying the markets to figure out the real patterns they need to figure out how to make money.
Do not complicate your life.
The best option for you is to take the shortest route possible, namely with nets or overexposure of orders.
Look for the least volatile parts of the market and trade on the plus side, do not pay attention to ignoramuses looking for something in the market that is not there.
They will have nothing else to do but laugh at you when you are making losses or furiously deny your profits.
All the ways to make quick money in the markets have long been explained and given on the forum.
Well, you lose $100-200, so what? It's only 13,000 rubles. You spend more on your mobiles. And if you win, you'll earn on top of a lot more than you invested.
Only one person in ten million, in my opinion, can actually develop a system that is guaranteed to make a profit in any situation. That is 100 people in a billion. About 700 people on the entire planet.
You're out of your depth...
My years have not been wasted at all. That's where you're very much mistaken.
You've got a lot on your mind...
And my years have not been wasted at all. That's where you're very much mistaken.
I've seen your results - you're good and you've achieved it.
But that does not mean that others will reach your heights of excellence. Few people are capable of such painstaking, long and hard work.
You've spent 10 years on this. That's a lot of work on mistakes.
You didn't know whether your system would work or not, whether you were going in the right direction.
But you redesigned your system hundreds of times. Very, very few people are capable of such things.
So I simply advise people not to get into it and to take a risky and shortcut route.
Because the other way is like rediscovering mathematics - you need a proof for anything and everything, otherwise the result of applying the theory is unknown, and it takes a lot of time and effort.
I have seen your results - you have done well and achieved it.
But that does not mean that others will reach your heights of excellence. few people are capable of such painstaking, long and hard work.
You've spent 10 years on this. That's a lot of work on mistakes.
You didn't know whether your system would work or not, whether you were going in the right direction.
But you redesigned your system hundreds of times. Very few people are capable of such changes.
So I just advise people to stay out of it and take the risky and shortcut route.Don't try to discourage anyone - it's wrong.
First of all, you obviously don't know much.
Secondly, you implicitly claim full knowledge.
See, what a paradox ;)
It does not matter what kind of analysis system you have, it does not matter how your robot opens and closes orders, it does not matter at all how you or the robot see the market.
All that matters is that your robot should make a profit after a day, week, month, year, 10 years, etc. and not lose it.
That's it.
This is the grail as you call it.
I don't care if you open one deal and wait a month.
If you make a profit, you make it guaranteed.
It makes no sense to torture yourself or others for years. You either take a risk and earn hundreds percent a month from kopecks, nets, or whatever, or you make a stable and guaranteed 50-100% a year from millions.
The essence of the market is its structure and I have not seen anyone on this forum who understands this essence as I do, calculating it mathematically.
But that does not mean that no one else is able to make money. No.
I'm just a more reliable trader, that's all. I'm always on the same wavelength as the market. I always catch the strongest and biggest pieces. My positions are always in the most advantageous place in relation to market movements.
But the upshot is that you don't really need it.
Why should you spend a lot of years doing something that you will probably never achieve? Why would you develop thousands of trading robots, study statistics and extract the essence of your trading robot by rote?
There are very few crazy people like me who can spend years studying the markets to figure out the real patterns they need to figure out how to make money.
Do not complicate your life.
The best option for you is to take the shortest route possible, namely with nets or overexposure of orders.
Look for the least volatile parts of the market and trade on the plus side, do not pay attention to ignoramuses looking for something in the market that is not there.
They will have nothing else to do but laugh at you when you are making losses or furiously deny your profits.
All the ways to make quick money in the markets have long been explained and given on the forum.
Well, you lose $100-200, so what? It's only 13,000 rubles. You spend more on your mobiles. And if you win, you'll earn on top of a lot more than you invested.
There's no need to discourage anyone - it's wrong.
Firstly, you clearly don't know much.
Secondly, you implicitly claim full knowledge.
See, that's a paradox ;)
I am claiming the applicability of theory in practice.
And I'm not denying that I don't know much.
And what do you mean by a lot, in relation to what?) Regarding the world, no one knows everything. Regarding markets, I claim to know everything.
This does not mean that I know how much you can earn on it, this means that I know how to squeeze the maximum out of the market fluctuations in two diametrically opposed ways - the third one does not exist. And that's impossible, since the outcome is binary in either case - up or down.
But let's get away from all this fiddling with arguments)
What's interesting to me is that I've studied hundreds if not thousands of ways to analyse time series data from various fields of science. and not a single one fits.
Almost everywhere the same error is n. Sampling. They write everywhere "let's take such-and-such a number of values...", take n values out of the blue, and then try to figure out if they got them right or not... they apply a lot of theory to prove that their n values taken literally from the ceiling are true.
I was just surprised that the theory of dynamical systems as attractors works - so you got around that point. Or that is much more interesting, the theory itself provides for it. The important thing is that the theory of attractors is universal.
Can you suggest a couple of good books? It would be a pleasure to read information on them at your leisure).
I am claiming the applicability of theory in practice.
I am not denying that I don't know much.
As far as the world is concerned, no one knows everything. As far as the markets are concerned, yes, I claim to know everything.
This does not mean that I know how much you can earn on it, this means that I know how to squeeze the maximum out of the market fluctuations in two diametrically opposed ways - the third does not exist. And that is impossible, as the outcome is binary in either case - up or down.
This is too strong a statement not to question the applicant's adequacy.
But let's get away from all this fiddling with arguments)
What's interesting to me is that I have studied hundreds if not thousands of ways to analyse time series data from various fields of science.
Almost everywhere the same error - n. Sampling. They write everywhere "let's take such-and-such a number of values...", take n values out of the blue, and then try to figure out if they got them right or not... and then apply a lot of theory to prove that their n values taken literally from the ceiling are true.
Yes, this is a very bottleneck in all such "theories".
I was just surprised that the theory of dynamical systems in the form of attractors works - so you have bypassed this point.Either the theory itself provides for it. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the theory of attractors is inherently universal.
The theory of dynamical systems is not only attractors. It cannot be "in the form of attractors" -- simply put, it cannot be expressed that way.
An attractor is just one of the many concepts used in dynamical systems theory.
Can you suggest a couple of sensible books? It would be very nice to read information on them at your leisure)
Okay. But the list is extensive. And books of varying complexity.
I will pick them up in my branch at my leisure.
Good. But the list is extensive. And books of varying difficulty.
I'll pick them up in my branch at my leisure.