The Sultonov system indicator - page 6
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
Yusuf is looking for yesterday's solutions. Methods of solving such problems have been known for a long time. The most sensible one is the MNC method.
Here is, say, the solution of what he proposes - for the second and third degree (blue and red dots are the initial data by which the channels were constructed, the second degree is a channel with a solid line, the third degree is a dotted line):
The channels are built in such a way that they must hit the last blue and red points. That is why - they are far "off" from the data.
Strongly mistaken, you are plotting a regression line, so the calculated data is away from the actual data. I don't have any regression lines and have no continuation for the "future". In my case, the coincidence of actual and calculated price values is perfect. Better study the calculations on the first page. I am determining the state of the market at the "here and now" moment. Without getting into the essence of the SIS indicator, you should not make hasty conclusions.
Strongly mistaken, you are constructing a regression line, so the calculated data is away from the actual data. I don't have any regression lines and have no continuation for the "future". In my case, the coincidence of actual and calculated price values is perfect. Better study the calculations on the first page. I am determining the state of the market at the "here and now" moment. Without getting into the essence of the SIS indicator, you should not make hasty conclusions.
Let's keep it on a need-to-know basis, Yusuf !
A complete match and no need to. If you want it so, you can use higher power and the interpolation polynomial Lagrange, and you'll get a perfect match for all points. The question is why?
That's the problem that you define some characteristics for the moment "here and now", while we need them for the moment in the future. And there they will be very different.
Here's another example - also third degree, but the channel is drawn without the condition to hit the last points, and the channel is not drawn separately by boundaries, but by equal indents from the central axis:
Twenty-five again! I have no second, third or any degree other than the first. And about MNC it is useless to argue with me, what kind of MNC I have used you do not know. I have used and shown on the forum an extended version of MOC using the notions of variation and covariance of variables, a particular case of which is called MOC, with which YOU and many other participants are familiar.
Let's be on a first-name basis, Yusuf !
You don't need a complete match. If you want it so much, no one prevents you from taking a higher degree or the interpolation polynomial Lagrange - and you'll get a perfect match for all the points. The question is why?
That's the problem that you define some characteristics for the moment "here and now", while we need them for the moment in the future. And there they will be very different.
Twenty-five again! I have no second, third or any other degree except the first. And there is no use arguing with me about MOC, you don't know what kind of MOC I used. I used and showed on the forum an extended version of MNC using the notions of variation and covariance of variables, a particular case of which is called MNC and which YOU and many other participants are familiar with.
I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that this version of MNC is no better than the standard one.
You can screw up a lot of things. But what is the point of it? You don't have a signal, consequently, you don't have a successful implementation of the indicator.
Let's be on a first-name basis, Yusuf !
You don't need a complete match. If you want it so much, no one prevents you from taking a higher degree or the interpolation polynomial Lagrange - and you'll get a perfect match for all the points. The question is why?
That's the problem: you define some characteristics for the moment "here and now" and we want to define them for the moment in the future. And there they will be very different.
The dream of knowing the future is not feasible. Why in the above example the verdict of the indicator did not turn out to be "saaaaavly different"?
The interpolation Lagrange polynomial is an artificial fit, the coefficients of which have no meaning. It is like dismembering a living bull by parts and trying to revive it by putting these parts back together. The mechanism of life is already destroyed!
Gheorghe, it's clear what the purpose of the topic is, don't be fooled
Would you be so kind as to remind me too, please, of the purpose of the thread.
I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that this version of the ISC is no better than the standard one.
You can do a lot of tricks. But what is the point of this? The signal you have no signal, it means that there is no successful implementation of the indicator.
Where will the signal come from if the indicator itself is not yet created?
For some reason, I think that the formula that Yusuf once again derives is a variation on a linear recurrence equation,
I've already studied the SSA method, it works, but alas, only on history....
Yusuf, you need a more systematic approach to this problem. All methods for solving equations using PCs usually boil down to working with matrices. Your problem should also be converted to matrices, then it may result in a rational discussion and checks in the code, as I wrote above, you should at least convert your calculations to Excel.
I agree, my method is better than the matrix up to processing 4 variables, then you need to switch to a matrix or gradually improve this method.