Geometric approach in price forecasting - page 7

New comment
 
Aleksey Mavrin:

Good for you for being discreet. The test passed ) Look, you are educated (probably ) and inquisitive since you study things, read Gunn and all that. Understand a simple thing, no right conclusions can be based on wrong assumptions if we are not about astrology))

You have a basic lack of understanding of the meaninglessness of squaring, but you try to pretend that you have discovered something important. It's like a maths flunkie re-discovering Pythagoras theorem, most likely with errors, builds a mega-theory on it and is sure that nobody understands it. That happens a lot in science. You're one of them. But you have a chance to hear the voice of reason.

Although you probably think that since you have managed to fit in your view on all instruments, you are right :)

God willing you will profit from it, whatever tweaks you make. Although, it would be better to open your eyes the other way round.

Alexey, good day, if you have said everything, thank you for your opinion, but we think otherwise.

 
Aleksey Vakhrushev:

Alexey, good afternoon, if you've said it all, thanks for your opinion, but we think otherwise.

Good afternoon! I always have something to add ;) Maybe you have understood the meaning of the name"geometric" and most importantly, the subtraction to the square? Please enlighten me.

s.s. I do not write where there is nothing interesting at all. Remember that truth is born in an argument. Do not look at my harsh tone. It is caused only by the fact that the TC did not understand the basic things that formed the basis of his findings, even after pointing them out. If they are corrected, the approach is interesting.

 
Aleksey Mavrin:

Good afternoon! I always have something to add ;) Maybe you understood the meaning of the name "geometric" and most importantly, the subordination to the square? Enlighten me please.

s.s. I don't write where there is nothing interesting at all. Remember that truth is born in an argument. Do not look at my harsh tone. It is caused only by the fact that the TC did not understand the basic things that formed the basis of his findings, even after pointing them out. If you correct them, the approach is interesting.

So offer a specific "fix" - you should do this and that, I've tested it, it works a hundred times better!!! Tested it on 3 (better 10-20 instruments of course)!!!

I personally would only "thank" you for this, well, I think not only me ... :)

And so, the statements made by you, such as "... you look over there, it's better and easier ..." looks like an approach - I invented a "thing", but you check it, maybe it's better.

And now on the merits of the justification of the square: everything comes from Gann's theory, if you read it again, or perhaps remember it, how is his scale defined? I will answer you with this screenshot (I even highlighted it with a red square):

and now a mnemonic scheme how to do it.

I guess I wasn't lying ... :) Excuse me of course, but I'm not a picasso ...

Shall I continue? Aleksey Mavrin see where I'm going with the pictures?

 
RomFil:

There are several methods of determining the scale... three at least I know of. Fixed, base and apex, and you can also use a floating scale. Like a muving averaging for angles. But I wouldn't say it's the most effective tool... As a supplementary tool, yes, but as a basic one, nope...

 

I'll go on, though...

Of course with this method there will be more unsuccessful trades than with Gunn, but the number of unsuccessful ones will not increase much ... Shall I continue?

 
RomFil:

So offer a specific "edit" - you have to do so and so, I checked it, it works a hundred times better!!! Tested it on 3 (better of course 10-20 instruments)!!!

I personally would only "thank" you for this, well, I think not only me ... :)

And so, the statements made by you, such as "... you look over there, it's better and easier ..." looks like an approach - I invented a "thing", but you check it, maybe it's better.

And now on the merits of the justification of the square: everything comes from Gann's theory, if you read it again, or perhaps remember it, then how does he define scale? I will answer you with this screenshot (I even highlighted it with a red square):

and now a mnemonic scheme how to do it.

I guess I wasn't lying ... :) I apologize of course, but I'm no picasso ...

To continue? Aleksey Mavrin understand what I mean by pictures?

DearRomFil, I checked, should do so - give up the square, it is irrelevant and dance on the pulse, I wrote earlier you an explanation of where you got lost with the square

At your example the line X8 on gold repeats the first beat, because roughly 30 * 8 = 240, this equals 975 divided by 4, ie the number of bars in the first beat.

Gunn says it correctly and in general your approach is correct, just refuse of the square (at least until you explain the meaning of its application) andI'll leave you alone, have fun studying the subject )

 
Aleksey Mavrin:

Dear RomFil, I checked, this is what you should do - give up the square, it is irrelevant and dance from the pulse, I wrote you an explanation of where you got lost with the square

At your example the line X8 on gold repeats the first beat, because roughly 30 * 8 = 240, this equals 975 divided by 4, ie the number of bars in the first beat.

Gunn says it all correctly and in general your approach is correct, just give up the square (at least until you explain the meaning of its application) and I'll leave you alone success in the study of the subject )

Got it ... :)

Would you be so kind as to calculate here according to your methodology scale?


 
RomFil:

Got it ... :)

Please, how do you calculate the scale here using your methodology?


My methodology I have not told you, and I'm not wasting my time looking for patterns on M5 ))

I've said all I have to say, if you don't understand I won't bother you more, but please keep from calling your thoughts as a working methodology, it's hard to get past that)

1234567
New comment