From theory to practice. Part 2 - page 55
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
It will turn into an SB.
In general, in theory, it is impossible to make money. But, in practice, it is not!
In general, in theory, it is impossible to make money. But, in practice, it is not!
In general, in theory, it is impossible to make money. But, in practice, it is not!
"In practice, it's the opposite...
Theoretically - earning is EASY...
In practice - it is less than 5% of all traders... If you mean long-term trading...
Just the opposite. Survivors, i.e. "earned" over a long period of time are few and far between...
Good.
However, back to the important phrase
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
From theory to practice. Part 2
Aleksey Nikolayev, 2021.04.18 10:30
This is an abstract mathematical object, that doesn't exist in reality. Therefore,there are always differences from it although usually they are not as big as we would like them to be. In addition, due to the non-stationarity of prices, they change over time.
It turns out that nonstationarity is the key to figuring out the market.
Non-stationarity manifests itself as non-stationary intensity of tick flow and non-stationary distribution of increments. And there is nothing to be done about it, for immediately we move to SB.
You have to take these two things "as is" and use them in your TS.
Hmm... There's certainly something to that...
Good.
However, back to the important phrase
It turns out that non-stationarity is the key to unlocking the market.
You have not correctly defined your goals... and that would be the "KEY"...
If your goal is : GETTING STABLE PROFIT, then what does "unraveling the market" have to do with it...?
Example: You go, you live, you act... without giving any thought to the fact that you are now breathing air (oxygen)... You don't even think about "figuring it out"...
Carry all this over to forex... You don't care how the market works... You care how to make a profit...
At first glance, it seems to be the same thing, but you do not think about breathing, while you live a full life ...
You've got your goals wrong..., and that would be the "KEY"...
If your goal is to make a STABILIZED PROFIT, what does "unlocking the market" have to do with it...?
Here we are faced with a philosophical paradox:
- Stable profits imply a stationary market. However, according to respected forum participants, the transition to stationarity implies the transition to a SB where profits are fundamentally impossible.
Conclusion: stable profit is fundamentally impossible.
- On the non-stationary market it is possible to make a profit, but it will be unstable.
So...
This is where we run into a kind of philosophical paradox:
- Stable profits imply a stationary market. However, as argued by respected forum participants, the transition to stationarity implies a transition to a SB in which profits are fundamentally impossible.
Conclusion: stable profit is fundamentally impossible.
- On the non-stationary market it is possible to make a profit, but it will be unstable.
So...
I didn't see the paradox.
Reread it again and didn't see it either :)))))
This is where we run into a kind of philosophical paradox:
- Stable profits imply a stationary market. However, as argued by respected forum participants, the transition to stationarity implies a transition to a SB in which profits are fundamentally impossible.
Conclusion: stable profit is fundamentally impossible.
- On the non-stationary market it is possible to make a profit, but it will be unstable.
So...
You see, you yourself have noticed the obvious inconsistencies in this "theory"...
Where did you get this postulate: "Stable profits imply a stationary market"...? Are you sure about that... What if that statement is false...?
Where did you get that postulate: "Stable profits imply a stationary market"...? Are you sure about that?
Logically, that's exactly what it is. But, I'm not going to argue about it...