Hidden divergence - page 13
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
Wow, what magnificent schizophrenia this turns out to be. All indictors are sick and will be incurable until we stop investing in them the ability to predict the future without good reason. The existing representation of charts (conventional, equitemporal bars) and their corresponding analytical and statistical properties allow us to speak confidently only about what happened in the past - but not about what happens next.
I hope that under certain conditions even wipers, which usually produce very mediocre signals, can become reliable indicators of the future. But in order to do so, it will be necessary to reflect on what we are relying on. If nobody minds, I will break into the topic of high di(ko,con)vergence with my simple and not at all philosophical dummies. Let's try to find an analytical rather than graphical basis for our confidence that the wizards should work.
An example is a trading system that generates signals on the crossing of the wavebow (period, say, 13) with the price. The signals are very simple: if the price is greater than the mask, we buy, and if it is less, we sell. Analytically, the signal to buy looks like this (zero bar is not touched):
13 * Close[1] > ( Close[1] + Close[2] + Close[3] + ... + Close[13] )
Great, now - stupid question: why, on what analytical basis do we believe that the price will rise for at least some time if we know this condition? Where in this condition is the information about future bars? There isn't any. There it is, the schizophrenia of the wrecking ball. Or rather, not the wreck itself, but our interpretation of the signal. I apologize for the diagnosis, but so far I do not see any reason for optimism.
Are you also sceptical about divergence?
Divergence connoisseurs have created FxmFish. (meant fishing).
If profits are no longer caught in the net of mathematics, but are said to still be catching on the divergence looking float,
does it mean that the authors of the method can be trusted as well as the fish)))
P.S. I wanted to say "as a fish", but the typo is better
to Mathemat
A comforting question:
Does this mean that the market is not a MTP and cannot be decomposed by the SSF?))
There are as many of these as you could possibly want.... and can you make a prediction? .... and if so, with what probability?
Well pull it and use it, not try to find the grail. You seem to forget that you are playing a game, not trading and that you need entry points based on some kind of market pattern, here you can clearly see the stock-reaction and structure of XABCD. This was just an example of a pattern that has been in effect for about 20 years. I will definitely use it in trading as one of the tools as I trade after C using a modified ZUP. I'll figure out the diversions, maybe I'll start trading after B as well.
Wow, what magnificent schizophrenia this turns out to be. All indictors are sick and will be incurable until we stop investing in them the ability to predict the future without good reason. The existing representation of charts (conventional, equitemporal bars) and their corresponding analytical and statistical properties allow us to speak confidently only about what happened in the past - but not about what's coming next.
Try reading 'Flow Analysis and Market Forecasting. 'Hateful Pipsing.' It demonstrates the practical operation of a complex analysis system on a particular day, in a particular real current-price market, with consistent operational solutions to the challenges faced by the trader. And, mind you, with precise determination of what will happen in the market at the next moment (i.e. in your opinion - what will happen next).
to s2101
Impressive, the least that remains is to determine the day D)))
to s2101
Impressive, the least that remains is to determine the day D)))
"Interesting question". If you know how to read, the article accurately indicates the day. And if you've ever seen a chart on Forex - it always has the date and exact time on it. (Specifically in the article GMT+2).
Try reading "Threaded Analysis and Market Forecasting". https://www. mql5.com/ru/forum/100105/page7 It demonstrates the practical work of the complex analysis system on a specific day, in a specific real market, with the consequent operational solution of the problems arising for the trader. And, note, with the precise determination of what will happen in the market at the next moment (i.e. in your opinion - what will happen next).
About the purity of the material. The indicators in the pictures do not have names.
About credibility. Divergences are more reliable and are determined on the SECOND troughs (tops) when they are both either below the 0 line or above the 0 line (or the mean, e.g. 50). It is possible to find charts where absolutely all corrections occur after the Divergence signal.
It is also possible to adjust the sensitivity of the indicator. However, it is nothing more than a fitting.
Entering after an impulse against the trend is a proven technique (I wrote about corrections earlier). Such a forecast can be given by anyone without divergence.
There are a lot of other signals. Which of them are more or less valuable for real trading instead of epistolary trading?
Once again I bring up the exit question.
What do you have to say about it?
With respect to your theoretical works (but what's their purpose? to help others or "preaching is good for the priest"?)
I have to add (hopefully no offence), that scientific theorizing (legitimate to cloud the brains of investors) confuses our unsophisticated compatriots and provokes them to lose often not superfluous money. Therefore, let us talk more about practical value, i.e. strategy, rather than fixing entry signals (I insist - signals are fixed i.e. signalling, not execution, execution occurs or does not occur after them, not "them").
For those discussing the topic. The topic does not need to be broached, and if it has dried up it can be summed up. Let me remind you - it is about the hidden divergence, its practical value for trading and about the materials on divergence and separation of the grains from the chaff. All materials of the subject co-authors and links content will be archived and posted on Yandex.
Question to the moderators - is it acceptable to post the theme materials on other resources?
to s2101
We are looking through the prism of MTS, i.e. that algorithm that can be implemented at least probabilistically.
So don't be surprised)))
An example is a trading system that generates signals by crossing a mask (period, say, 13) with the price. The signals are very simple: if the price is greater than the mask, we buy, and if it is less, we sell. Analytically, the signal to buy looks like this (zero bar is not touched):
13 * Close[1] > ( Close[1] + Close[2] + Close[3] + ... + Close[13] )
Great, now the stupid question: why, on what analytical basis do we assume that the price will rise for at least some time if we know this condition? Where is the information about future bars in this condition? There isn't any. There it is, the schizophrenia of the wrecking ball. Or rather, not the wreck itself, but our interpretation of the signal. I apologize for the diagnosis, but so far I do not see any reason for optimism.
Well, where is the analytical basis for the prediction: "Under normal conditions at temperatures below zero water will turn into ice"?
...
Right - it's outside that statement.