The most banal trading strategy - page 28
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
Dear forum members, we have all become convinced that the market is mainly ruled by chance. The search for patterns has not yet led to variable success, again due to the interference of chance.
Let's try to find out the potential of possible success and depths of abyss in case of failure of the most incredible trivial strategies, one of which is to stupidly open N buy and sell positions simultaneously on different TFs with the same or different TP and SL, as well as the initial deposit D.
On the history we should try to optimize N, TF, TP and SL, D. Perhaps many traders have already tried to analyze this strategy, then we will ask them to share their opinions. Who has tried such a strategy in practice?
Dude, that's the biggest "shame", you are a live market, moved by live people you are trying to understand with a dumb approach. and this will not work. You have to talk to live people in a humane way, otherwise it just won't work. You're killing the living with your maths. History has seen this many times before, the most living example is Mozart and Salieri, what did Salieri want to do? In case you have forgotten, look on YouTube and how it ended, a dead approach will achieve nothing.
Buddy, that's the main "shame" here, you are a living market driven by living people and you are trying to have a stupid approach to understanding. and that is not going to work. You have to talk to live people in a humane way, otherwise it just won't work. You're killing the living with your maths. History has seen this many times before, the most living example is Mozart and Salieri, what did Salieri want to do? In case you have forgotten, look on YouTube and how it ended, a dead approach will achieve nothing.
That is my point exactly. Living people make the market. There is no force from outer space that moves the price.
Andrey Gladyshev:
That's my point exactly. Living people make the market. There is no force from outer space that moves the price.
Dead people do, too. The head of a major successful corporation dies and the stock of that corporation goes down.
The dead do too. The head of a major successful corporation dies and the shares of that corporation go down.
It's not some force from outer space. Things can't start moving instantly on cardiac arrest.
Buddy, that's the main "shame" here, you are a living market driven by living people and you are trying to have a stupid approach to understanding. and that is not going to work. You have to talk to live people in a humane way, otherwise nothing will work. You're killing the living with your maths. History has seen this many times before, the most living example is Mozart and Salieri, what did Salieri want to do? In case you have forgotten, look on YouTube and how it ended, a dead approach will achieve nothing.
right.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/307127
The dead do too. The head of a major successful corporation dies and the shares of that corporation go down.
It will be a news backdrop in the first place, and they will be able to recover in the aftermath. They'll be glad they're dead.)
There must be proof? Or just blurted it out?:)
There are very poppy experiments with particles that behave differently in identical situations, depending on whether they are observed or not.
I didn't just blurt it out, unlike you.
If you wish to discuss quantum effects with "particles that behave differently in identical situations, depending on whether they are observed or not", then specifically for you I will inform that the parable that in quantum theory there is a measurement problem leading to paradoxes of wave function collapse does exist. Exactly, it is affirmed firstly, existence of this problem, and secondly, necessity of introduction of consciousness (?!) of an observer in quantum theory for its solution.
The parable is indeed told from time to time by eminent physicists. However, the "argument from authority" was already considered the weakest in the Middle Ages. There are also other views, which do not see in quantum theory any problems mentioned by you, and do not require the introduction of an observer in the description of the measurement process. This whole kitchen is too complicated to really discuss here (and with you). Just remember that the problem of wave function reduction is only a hypothesis. And there are many different hypotheses. For example, there is a hypothesis that there is only one (1) electron in the whole Universe and it has to run around the Universe, manifesting in all these countless interactions as if there were many of them...
Suggestion to the admins, maybe ban or delete at once for flooding and insulting the participants?
Seconded.
I did not just blurt it out, unlike you.
If you wish to discuss quantum effects with "particles which behave differently in identical situations, depending on whether they are observed or not", then specially for you I will inform that the parable that in quantum theory there is a measurement problem, leading to paradoxes of collapse of the wave function, really exists. Exactly, it is affirmed firstly, existence of this problem, and secondly, necessity of introduction of consciousness (?!) of an observer in quantum theory for its solution.
The parable is indeed told from time to time by eminent physicists. However, the "argument from authority" was already considered the weakest in the Middle Ages. There are other views that do not see any problems in quantum theory mentioned by you, and do not require the introduction of an observer into the description of the measurement process. This whole kitchen is too complicated to really discuss here (and with you). Just remember that the problem of wave function reduction is only a hypothesis. And there are many different hypotheses. For example, there is a hypothesis that there is only one (1) electron in the whole Universe and it has to run around the Universe, manifesting itself in all these countless interactions as if there were many...
Do you believe in this hypothesis, support, deny?
I am more interested in practical application of this hypothesis.
Do you believe in this hypothesis, do you support it, do you deny it?
I am more interested in the practical application of this hypothesis.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle differs from this hypothesis much less than it may seem. After all, he also postulates that it is impossible to know precisely the position and speed of the electron at one and the same moment of time and that one cannot define precisely its energy at a given moment of time and that all laws of "common sense" do not work: that the electron can disappear and appear again in another place or be in a pile of different places at the same time. Incidentally, the fact that electrons can be in many places at the same time is the basis of all known chemistry. In high school, they talk about the sprawling electrons that ensure that two atoms bind together, don't they? Translated into human terms: All chemistry is based on the idea that electrons can be in many places at the same time. In practice this all means, in particular, that we have come very close to the fundamental limit up to which we can shrink the size of the silicon transistors in our processors: just a bit more and those transistors will cease to be "classical" (and will stop working!), as we will not be able to understand where the damn electrons are, because they will be everywhere simultaneously.
As for the beliefs in the hypothesis... If one considers that at the moment of Big Bang the Universe was smaller than an electron, then naturally one must admit that the Universe too can exist in many parallel states (worlds). By the way, if one wants to insert an observer, here is a consideration: the Copenhagen interpretation, when applied to the whole Universe, faces a difficulty: if there is an "observer", whose observations cause collapse of the wave function, an observer of the Universe has to be "outside", observing the Universe from outside. Should not the impossibility to observe the Universe from outside be considered as a critical, fatal drawback of such interpretation, advocated by one of local speakers? But what can you do, local speakers have been orating a lot in this thread. Both for time travel and anti-matter... By the way, if you change the direction of time in Dirac's equation to the opposite, simultaneously changing the sign of the electron charge, the equation itself remains the same. Simply put, an electron moving backwards in time is a positron moving forwards in time, and no local speaker can deny this fact :-) In other words, the reason antimatter is allowed to exist is because it can travel backwards in time. Wah. And if an electron and a positron collide, they are known to annihilate with the formation of a gamma quantum, i.e. there is a burst of energy instead. Let's draw a diagram of this on a piece of paper: two objects collide and disappear, instead there is a burst of energy. If we reverse the charge of the positron, it turns into an electron moving backwards in time. And we can redraw the diagram by pointing the time axis in the other direction, so that it looks like the electron was moving forward in time, and then suddenly decided to change direction and headed backwards in time, releasing some energy at the moment of reversal. My point is that it is originally the same electron, and the process of annihilation of electron and positron is just the moment of its reversal in time :-) So, as any particle has a partner-antiparticle, we may conclude: all particles are capable to move backwards in time, and pretend to be antimatter at that: and local speakers orally argued that there is very little antimatter for some reason. And that's how it is: there is no difference at all between matter and antimatter, it just depends on where it decides to move: into the future or into the past, as it wishes :-) In a word, I am tired to philosophize, hardly the readers of this branch will understand what we are talking about, though from the point of view of physics I have stated the pure truth.
P.S. Now let's imagine that we have a piece of antimatter and we collide it with ordinary matter, generating the strongest explosion. At that moment, trillions of electrons and trillions of positrons annihilate with each other. But, if we reverse the direction of the arrow for the positron and turn it thus into an electron moving backwards in time, it turns out that our whole explosion is the same electron zigzagging and flitting backwards and forwards in time a trillion times in a row. From all this another curious conclusion could be drawn: there must be only one electron in our lump of matter. One and the same electron was carried back and forth, making endless zigzags in time. Each time it turned around in time, it turned into a positron; but as soon as it turned back around in time, it turned back into an ordinary electron. Huh? Can you imagine? How does it feel?
P.P.S. In the end, Feynman reasoned that there is probably only one electron in the universe at all, bouncing back and forth in time. Yes, that's it. Out of the chaos of the Big Bang, a single electron was born. Someday, in a few trillion years, this electron will live up to the catastrophe and destruction of the Universe; then it will turn around and head back to the Big Bang, where it once again reverses direction in time. We can assume that this electron is constantly travelling back and forth, from the Big Bang to, so to speak, Doomsday. And our twenty-first century Universe is simply a time slice of this electron's travels; we see simultaneously innumerable trillions of electrons and positrons, i.e. the visible Universe. Could this be the reason why all electrons are the same? Could it be that there is just one single electron in the whole Universe, which is simply carried back and forth in time?