The right to publicly demonstrate the conclusions of a theoretical forum thread on a live account - page 2
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
I think there is hardly anything new to offer in terms of market mathematics. Everything that could be done has already been done by humanity. All that remains is to write robots on trading systems, which are not automated yet but have shown their effectiveness. Theoretical developments are as useless as searching for the chemical formula for liverwurst.
You may be right, but for some reason market makers continue to keep quite large teams of mathematicians.
Dear forum participants,I think the logical conclusion of any theoretical branch should be a public demonstration, in a real trade, laid ideas and assumptions. The task of the branch host is to prove to his opponents the right course of thought in discussing the main idea of the branch's topic. But I think the author of a branch should earn this right of public demonstration, for example, by public exposure of the code of a developed indicator in open access in kodobase and get the permission of resource managers and/or moderators to this procedure, so as not to be banned for one reason or another, mainly for suspicion of promoting dowtips. At the moment, many theoretical threads remain incomplete and the process of learning the market has stalled. Traders cannot change their viewpoint on the market in any way, other than through the prism of MA -ships and all sorts of levels, mystical numbers and waves. Your opinions.
What are you talking about?
The task of the moderator of the thread is to share knowledge and experience and discuss options for using this knowledge with those interested. And he does not have to prove anything to his opponents. And this perl"the right of public demonstration the author of the branch must earn," I do not know how to understand.
No one is not forcing anyone to follow the topicstarter. Who is interested - he understands and follows. Who is not interested - goes by.
Have you thought about what you are offering here?
I think there is hardly anything new to offer in terms of market mathematics. Everything that could be done has already been done by humanity. All that remains is to write robots on trading systems, which are not yet automated but have shown their effectiveness. Theoretical developments are as useless as searching for the chemical formula of liverwurst.
Oh, that's a very big misconception! I'm the only one with enough new ones, and I'm not the only one in the market. And any robot is mathematics! Because essentially programming is the expression of a trading strategy in formulas.
Vladimir Perervenko:
And he does not have to prove anything to his opponents. And this pearl"the right of public demonstration the author of a branch should earn," I do not know how to understand.
You don't understand simple things! The forum is not a rubbish bin where you can dump all your rubbish... Any KNOWLEDGE needs to be presented accordingly... If it is a THEORY, then there must be some success confirming that theory, i.e. ... POSITIVE results of application of this new knowledge...
You don't fully understand simple things either. When there are positive results from the application of the theory developed, no one is sure to post it on the forum... there is no motivation.
"The market is changing" is such an incorrect phrase, purely for the sake of red-lining and manipulating immature newcomers.
The price cannot go by the rules, otherwise it will turn into an endless straight line on some sufficiently high TF. In practice we observe that on all TFs there is a chaotic pattern. The price in the real conditions is a generator of random directions in a certain price range, the size of which depends on time (because the price cannot fall to 0 points and fly up to a million points in a single moment). On each TF the price moves in various directions, and there is no straight line on any of them.
The rules are limitations. And the price will follow it making a straight line on a certain TF, inside of which on some smaller TF it will follow a certain pattern and will not go out of it.
Price formation is always chaotic, 97% of all traders in the world confirm that. But, locally it is possible to win on a certain period of time, it can last a year or more, most often it is a month or three. And, forex fighters, running their strategy or advisor on this time interval, according to the theory of probability, get not a short-term, but long-term effect in the form of a year-long profit, a beautiful graph that goes only upwards, using a strict stop-loss. And they rub it in to newbies that they have a working strategy. And as soon as they start losing money, they say "the market has changed, alas. The strategy doesn't work."
They are always changing, on every interval, there are no identical segments, they all at least differ by a tick. It's the logic of the chart, whichever timeframe you go to.
And the phrase "the market has changed" always implies a smart-faced trader thinking that "something has gone wrong...". No, exactly as it should be.
You may be right, but for some reason market makers continue to keep quite large teams of mathematicians.
You may be right, but for some reason market makers continue to keep quite large teams of mathematicians.
One does not contradict the other. Suppose you invested $1000. An annual return of +20% for that amount would hardly interest you much. In one year you'll make $200 and that's not much at all. Now imagine you have an investment fund and the amount is not $1000, but $100 billion. You have to manage to earn 20% of that $100 billion. That's what maths is for. But this particular mathematics will be completely useless and boring for you with $1000. We will be interested in the other maths, with 100% per month. And that is exactly what we don't have and will hardly ever have.
One does not contradict the other. Suppose you have invested $1,000. An annual return of +20% for that amount would hardly be of much interest to you. In a year you will make $200 and that's not much at all. Now imagine you have an investment fund and the amount is not $1000, but $100 billion. You have to manage to earn 20% of that $100 billion. That's what maths is for. But this particular mathematics will be completely useless and boring for you with $1000. We will be interested in the other maths, with 100% per month. And that is exactly what we don't have and will hardly ever have.
I'm not trying to prove such an obvious thing as market makers using maths. But you don't need teams of mathematicians working full time for that - you need them to continuously develop fundamentally new methods. And, in my opinion, the money is not so much spent for huge profit percentages, but rather to ensure that over time you don't lose what you have now. Traders can hardly stay away from this "arms race".