Thoughts on some of the absurdity of multi-currency analysis. - page 27
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's not necessary to distribute ticks neither by time nor by amplitude - the ticks that form the direction of bar movement are important - random ticks are usually singular in a bar, but they can form either a bar high or low - at least, in an active trend
for example if you have 50 ticks, what criteria do you use to decide which tick will form the direction of a bar?
Z.I. Alexei, good research is imperishable. They may resurface, it's just that with the passage of time, you look at them from a different perspective. I gladly look through the branch. It's a good word for the North Wind.
You have 50 ticks, what criteria do you use to decide which tick is the one that determines the direction of movement?
i.e. if out of 50 ticks 30 ticks will impulse a bar down, then the bar will go down. it's just that if we collect ticks without timing, then the difference between the collected ticks and a new tick will always pass some zero point, and when passing this point, if the new tick has enough impulse then we "may jump under a candle"
try to make a ticking mask
i.e. if out of 50 ticks 30 ticks will impulse a downward move, then the bar will go down, but if you collect the ticks without time synchronization, then the difference between the collected ticks and a new tick will always pass some zero point, and when passing this point, if the new tick has a sufficient impulse, you "may jump under the candle".
try to make a ticking mask
so i see. the previous phrase aroused burning interest. sorry it was not correct :-), and the ticking wizard has been done for a long time. here's an old picture
The red line (all ticks are above it) is a kind of analog of a dashboard. The vertical green lines are the beginning of the minute. The red 5-minute lines. Two bounces down, this is an attempt of DC to knock down stops (not me). It's clear, it's the end of Friday, no one likes to be undressed ))
I hope you like this picture.
If I am not mistaken then was a very smooth and beautiful move up almost 2 hours, looking at the minutes of it is impossible to even guess
This is a joint appeal from me and getch (unfortunately banned)
Here's a quote from his Skype correspondence
"The point is that you see some inconsistency with my assertions in the different figures. And I don't see it at all, if people give a logically correct reasoning then logic itself will put everything in its place. It's just that some of the guys on the forum are actually able to describe what I said well logically. You will read it and understand. If they don't, I'll try."
Now a question. Getch states that there is a rigid relationship and looks in terms of these formulas.
EURGBPask = EURUSDask / GBPUSDbid
EURGBPbid = EURUSDbid / GBPUSDask
I look at it from the point of view of distance travelled (0.00978, 0.00879, 0.00367) and argue that there is no rigid connection, as different distance is travelled (we cannot calculate the third one, knowing two figures). As for his formulas, yes they are correct, but it is in the moment, in a given second it seems to be a rigid connection but it is a fallacy, the currencies (cars) move differently.
If you don't mind, please help us understand....
If we look at it from the point of view of the distance travelled, Sergey is absolutely right that there is no rigid connection. 0.00978, 0.00879, 0.00367-these values are calculated, but each was achieved differently. The first one happened by fall of 40 points + growth of 50 points +....-..... = 978 pips, the second is different and the third is different. So, knowing the two pairs, we can calculate the value of the third one. But knowing way of the first two pairs we cannot calculate the path of the third pair.
And knowing two pairs, we can calculate the value of the third. But knowing path of the first two pairs we can't calculate the path of the third pair.
EURGBPbid = EURUSDbid / GBPUSDask
the calculated askys and bid values will be quite different from those received in the terminal.
Even with this formula, EURGBPask = EURUSDbid / GBPUSDbid
EURGBPbid = EURUSDbid / GBPUSDask
the calculated askys and bid values will be quite different from those received in the terminal.
I read the thread and I'm freaking out. They will write such things...
Let's take any pair, for example EURUSD. Let's not take into account digital noise of rounding and sampling, spreads and other insignificant rubbish. Then we may assume that at any time the equality EURUSD=EURGBP*GBPUSD=EURJPY/USDJPY=EURCHF/USDCHF=... I can go on with this equation for a long time, as long as I keep going through all currencies. This means that EURUSD cannot take it by itself and go somewhere by itself. It will have to take EURGBP or GBPUSD or EURJPY or USDJPY etc. And these pairs have a life of their own and influence EURUSD. It is a rigidly connected system and it is nonsense to analyse one of its elements separately.
That is the reason why well-known indicators, support/resistance, channels, head/shoulders, wave analysis, VSA and all other known analysis methods do not work properly in forex.
There is no point in non-multicurrency analysis!!!
It is easier to analyse 8 indices than 28 pairs. If there are more currencies (and you need more for more accuracy), the difference will be even more noticeable.
Therefore, there is no point in analysing pairs when there are indices!!!
And in this thread, half of the posts are philistine speculations about the structure of the global financial system, and have nothing to do with either trading or analysis, it doesn't make much sense either.
So there is no point in analysing pairs when there are indices!!!
I suggest we discuss the subject of indices without flubbing. Ready?
In a set of BPs, it makes sense to talk about indices when they are independent BPs - orthogonal basis - zero correlation (Pearson's favourite) between BPs.
In practice, of course, there will be no zero correlation. But again it makes sense to solve the following problem:
Creation of such VRs which have minimal correlation between them, while it is always possible to obtain any VR of the original set through a linear (here one can start to be picky) combination of these VRs.