ATC.Experience, knowledge and practice. - page 2

New comment
 
Vitaly Muzichenko:

Bow and point:"Foreignexchange"

This will not be declined, nor will other foreign language spellings. Forex is a separate borrowed lexical unit, like "mesozoic".
 
SeriousRacoon:
It won't be declined, just like other foreign language spellings. Forex is a borrowed lexical unit in its own right, like "mesozoic".

That's why I wrote that it's not declined. In a coat for a coffee).

 
Vitaly Muzichenko:

That's why I wrote that it's not declined. In the coat for a coffee)

There are several types of declension, inflected and indeclinable nouns. The latter include, among others, loanwords with nearly all vowel endings. Hvorex is declined)
 
And I tell you, what would I do without my robot I can't imagine, I would probably stop trading, because without my beloved robot I would not be able to keep an eye on this whole market. He's not tired and has no emotions. I would not trade without him, because he would not get tired and he does not have any emotions. I don't know if I can afford it, but I have to trade without it too, so we have some symbiosis, I warn him against charging, he monitors the market while I am sleeping or working. I say so: it's much easier to keep an eye on the robot than to trade by yourself. It's like with tomatoes and cucumbers at the cottage. It's cool when you have an auto-irrigator, it will water seedlings at certain times by the hour and will do it with such meticulous precision that no human being can handle such a regime - traffic jams, kids staying home late, you will have traffic jams, the kids are late at home, your mother-in-law and her neighbour are late for watering, and the automatic machine will make crops much harder than a human, because it is not tired, it makes no mistakes, plants get used to its schedule and bear fruit. A man will never be able to surpass a machine in its precision. The market is another matter, a robot may make a mistake, but it will never oversleep on a signal if it's written correctly. The only thing that it sometimes lacks intelligence and reason to behave ambiguously in one and the same situation, but a human is needed here to play along or guide it. So I think that the robot is extremely necessary in trading, especially when you have to make huge calculations to make a decision. Naturally, it is IMHO.
 

A trader's career (development) is halted by

- understanding that testing is impossible

- understanding of the self-sufficiency and complexity of the system created

- understanding that it is impossible to program what the human brain can do and what can be observed with the eyes

all this is self-deception

 
In all honesty, it is possible to write a working owl that will not lose the deposit. But it will be based on completely different principles than manual trading. No, we are not talking about martin and other averaging or tick trading.
 

To start with, I suggest we test one idea - do a statistical analysis. After the MA and EMA price crossing (2 variants, closing price period of 48) on TF M5 for 5 pairs, how many times did it go to 25, 30 in 35p (4 signs). And a similar one - TF M15, MA with period 96.
There is a complete "0.0" in programming. It will help to find out the "flat" and "trendy" market pattern, and to make a "filter". Analysis for 3-4 months.
Sincerely Roman (I have not written well in Russian for a long time).

 
Роман Лагуш:

To begin with I propose to test one idea - to carry out the analysis of statistics. After the MA and EMA price crossing (2 variants, by the closing prices of the period 48) on the TF M5 for 5 pips, how many times it diverged by 25, 30 in 35 pips (4 signs). And a similar one - TF M15, MA with period 96.
There is a complete "0.0" in programming. It will help to find out the "flat" and "trending" market pattern, and to make a "filter". Analysis for 3-4 months.
Sincerely Roman (I have not written well in Russian for a long time).

Such a flat filter made sense before. Now the markets are not even volatile, but flighty: it sits in a flat and bang - by 10-20 pips in one candle. And then it sits in a flat, or crawls up and down in it. What may be interesting - the probability of returning to the average after the departure by N pips.

The analysis for 3-4 months is a fitting of the history. Take 7-10 years. It may happen that this analysis will give only 1 entry per 5M per week, but it will be the ultimate quality entry.

 
SeriousRacoon:

Such a flat filter made sense before. Now the markets have become not even volatile, but flighty: it sits in a flat and bang - by 10-20 pips in one candle. And then it sits in a flat, or crawls up and down in it. What may be interesting is the probability of returning to the average after the deviation by N pips.

A 3-4 month analysis is a fit with history. Take 7-10 years. It may happen that such an analysis will give only 1 entry per 5M per week, but it will be the ultimate quality entry.

You are contradicting yourself.

If the markets have significantly changed, then there is no point in taking more statistical depth, only one harm :-)

PS/ I agree with the first part - we're in the "big bang era" here - currency market volume is growing at 15-20% a year. And that's a pessimistic estimate. This growth is tearing up all the old rules like a dog's backside.

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

you are contradicting yourself.

if the markets have changed significantly, there is no point in taking more depth statistics, only one harm :-)

PS/ I agree with the first part - we are in the "big bang era" - the foreign exchange market is growing at 15-20% a year. And that's a pessimistic estimate. This growth is tearing up all the old rules like a tire iron.

I understand your confusion, I was in it myself )) picking parameters for, let's say, "market moves" over 7 years gives a good profit on a 12 year deep history with almost the same drawdown. The greater statistical depth allows you to sift out market models that happen to look good at shallow depth, but in fact turn out not to work.
1234567
New comment