On the unequal probability of a price move up or down - page 106
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
Words of gold! The longer a position is in the market, the more uncertainties start to affect it. 2-3 hours is also a lot.
This is very dubious, rather the opposite is true: long term trends are stable and short term trends are more random.
This is very dubious, rather the opposite is true: long-term trends are stable and short-term trends are more random.
This is very dubious, rather the opposite is true: long-term trends are stable and short-term trends are more random.
this is also an interesting topic
Can you prove it with facts and figures?
This is very dubious, rather the opposite is true: long-term trends are stable and short-term trends are more random.
Using the usual correlation as an example: I traded intraday for two weeks, and then I let my trades float for another three weeks. If I closed the divergence on the same day, then the loss was less than the divergence of the correlation for 3 weeks. I.e. at first I chopped deals by the end of the day, then I let them go. And at some point the divergence exceeded its level and went further (to mid-term). And it was possible to make profit inside the day, because some days of the week the euro and the pound are short-term collapsed.
And these are the levels of divergence of a lesser order, so to speak, probably what is meant.
Here I am inclined to the opinion of RomFil
this is also an interesting topic.
Can you justify it with figures and facts?
I can't quantify it, it's empirical conclusions (the quality of predictions falls as the TF decreases) and common sense. The logic is simple: processes have different priorities in the overall hierarchy. For example, you need to get to work. This event is important, it is highly likely to occur regardless of notable but less significant circumstances: whether or not you got enough sleep, what you had for breakfast or whether you had breakfast at all. Its implementation may be delayed by some other events, say, a flat tyre on the road. You have to get to work, so you replace the wheel and get to work, even if you are late. Only force majeure can cancel this important event, which of course happens from time to time.
The same is true of road travel. You need to get from point A to point B and it is highly likely to happen. The specific trajectory of your journey is determined by a host of minor circumstances such as weather, the behaviour of other road users, getting into timed traffic lights, your state of mind and mood and similar trifles. All of these noise factors are roughly speaking random and of course contribute to some deviation of the trajectory from the most optimal, but in the end, you still arrive in about the same time for a number of outcomes.
Quantitatively I can't, it's empirical conclusions (the quality of predictions falls as the TF decreases) and common sense. The logic is simple: processes have different priorities in the overall hierarchy. For example, you need to get to work. This event is important, it is highly likely to occur regardless of notable but less significant circumstances: whether or not you got enough sleep, what you had for breakfast or whether you had breakfast at all. Its implementation may be delayed by some other events, say, a flat tyre on the road. You have to get to work, so you replace the wheel and get to work, even if you are late. Only force majeure can cancel this important event, which of course happens from time to time.
The same is true of road travel. You need to get from point A to point B and it is highly likely to happen. The specific trajectory of your journey is determined by a host of minor circumstances such as weather, the behaviour of other road users, getting into timing traffic lights, your well-being and mood and similar trivialities. All these noisy factors are roughly speaking random and of course contribute to some deviation of the trajectory from the most optimal, but in the end you still arrive in about the same time for a number of outcomes.
The analogy from life is poorly applicable to the financial markets. Here it's like this: you open a position and expect to sit in it for 3-5 hours. Half an hour later, Trump woke up, tweeted something, and the rate closed your position on a stop-loss with a slip of several dozen points against you. And the longer a position is in the market, the higher the probability of such unpredictable force majeure. And the reliability of long-term trends is also a fairy tale from the past. Refinancing rates are dynamic, the political and economic environment in the world is also changing often and quickly. A position of a few minutes, tens of minutes at most, is the most reliable and predictable. That's why I'm being all imho.
Life analogies do not apply much to the financial markets. It's like this: you open a position and expect to be in it for 3-5 hours. Half an hour later, Trump woke up, tweeted something, and the exchange rate closed your position at a stop and with a slip of several dozen points against you. And the longer a position is in the market, the higher the probability of such unpredictable force majeure. And the reliability of long-term trends is also a fairy tale from the past. Refinancing rates are dynamic, the political and economic environment in the world is also changing often and quickly. A position of a few minutes, tens of minutes at most, is the most reliable and predictable. That's why I'm being all imho.
Life analogies do not apply much to the financial markets. It's like this: you open a position and expect to be in it for 3-5 hours. Half an hour later, Trump woke up, tweeted something, and the exchange rate closed your position at a stop and with a slip of several dozen points against you. And the longer a position is in the market, the higher the probability of such unpredictable force majeure. And the reliability of long-term trends is also a fairy tale from the past. Refinancing rates are dynamic, the political and economic environment in the world is also changing often and quickly. A position of a few minutes, tens of minutes at most, is the most reliable and predictable. That's why I'm using an imho.
Quotes are derived from real life, they are not broadcasted from a matrix. Yes, it is a separate process with its own special effects (levels of thinking and cognitive errors), which sometimes introduce significant distortions, but it is still based on real economics. And this is life, so the domestic analogy is quite applicable to the market. We do not live in chaos, but in a more or less orderly world. Look at the clearly trending development of mankind: from stick diggers to space rockets. What is this if not a directed process in which goals and intentions take clear precedence over chance?
Quotations are derived from real life, they are not broadcast from the matrix. Yes, it is a separate process with its own special effects (levels of thinking and cognitive errors), which sometimes introduce significant distortions, but it is still based on real economics. And this is life, so the domestic analogy is quite applicable to the market. We do not live in chaos, but in a more or less orderly world. Look at the clearly trending development of mankind: from stick diggers to space rockets. What is that if not a directed process, in which goals and intentions take clear precedence over chance?
Is your real life predictable? Surely you could also predict the ruble collapsing 2.5 times in 2014? Does the bubbleubble of the franc in 2015, which caused the bankruptcy of many brokers and hedge funds, fit your concept of an orderly world? Or the 2008 crisis? Or ....?
You seem to be far removed from the financial markets. You stack kopecks to kopecks for months and years, but you risk losing everything in a minute. And it takes just one event (a black swan) to lose, even stops won't save you from it. The black swan can play in your favor, and your position can virtually bring huge profits. But your broker will go bankrupt and you'll stay not only without profit, but also without a deposit. This is what happened to an acquaintance of mine in the franc situation, he lost more than $120,000 even though he was theoretically supposed to earn a few thousand dollars.