Fast Fourier Transform - Cycle Extraction - page 51
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
...
The whole situation reminds me of one joke :
A guy drives a bicycle without using hands, passes by his friend and says to him "See how I am driving without using hands". A minute later he comes back and tells to his friend "See how I am driving without teeth".
_________________________________
People are forgetting the basic thing for any job they want to do (and trading is just a job like any other job) : they have to know what are they doing. It is not about settings of some indicator or script or EA but about knowing what is one doing. So the first step is learning, not the flying. But then it seems that learning is "out" these years. If one sits in Buggati Veyron without knowing to drive really, really well and with cool head, one will lose his life. That can be applied even to a simplest moving average : I saw so many wrong usages of it (the average) that it is incredible. When it comes to something a bit more complicated sometimes I am surprised when I see that someone does not use it in a wrong way
Oh well. A beautiful world we are living in
Hence why I let the cat out of the bag cause it really won't make much difference!
Cheers,
Pip...
read somewhere the other day..."the difference between repainters and nrp is...nrp places wrong signals...while repainter repaints that part" something along those lines...
...
In the case of Fourirer transform (and I will repeat that Goertzel algorithm is a subset of it) telling that it "repaints" is like telling that the earth should be flat because somebody expects it. The nature of cycles analysis is not what the majority expects, but cycles analysis is not going to "become flat" because of that. And that is what I was referring to : one must understand what is done with some analysis tool before even thinking to start to learn how to use that tool
The other thing will maybe seem as just a pure semantics to some people, but I will repeat once again there are non-recalculating and recalculating ways of reaching some results. "Repainting" is none of those : "repainting" is simply a coding error or a deliberate misleading and can not be used in any way connected to Fourirer transform and Gortzel browser : it is a complete misunderstanding what those do. That is why it does not matter what settings do you use. Those tools are not meant to "give signals", but to analyze, but it seems that the "analyze" part from the "technical analysis" is a part that people think is assumed and worthless, and that nobody should use his/hers own brain any more to analyze, but all one has to do is to find some "magic indicator" that will make them rich and whatever comes from being rich.
"Repainting" became a word with no meaning at all the way it is used and when someone tried to apply it to analysis all he/she showed is a complete lack of knowledge what he/she is taking about
___________________________________________
Leaving this subject now, I think that there is no use of "explaining the obvious" too much. Btw: I do not think that nrp indicators give wrong signals (i know a couple that some would call a "magic" ones with proper usage). With some analysis added a signal is just a signal, and if it is wrong or right is determined with what is done afterwards
read somewhere the other day..."the difference between repainters and nrp is...nrp places wrong signals...while repainter repaints that part" something along those lines...
:)
In the case of Fourirer transform (and I will repeat that Goertzel algorithm is a subset of it) telling that it "repaints" is like telling that the earth should be flat because somebody expects it. The nature of cycles analysis is not what the majority expects, but cycles analysis is not going to "become flat" because of that. And that is what I was referring to : one must understand what is done with some analysis tool before even thinking to start to learn how to use that tool
The other thing will maybe seem as just a pure semantics to some people, but I will repeat once again there are non-recalculating and recalculating ways of reaching some results. "Repainting" is none of those : "repainting" is simply a coding error or a deliberate misleading and can not be used in any way connected to Fourirer transform and Gortzel browser : it is a complete misunderstanding what those do. That is why it does not matter what settings do you use. Those tools are not meant to "give signals", but to analyze, but it seems that the "analyze" part from the "technical analysis" is a part that people think is assumed and worthless, and that nobody should use his/hers own brain any more to analyze, but all one has to do is to find some "magic indicator" that will make them rich and whatever comes from being rich.
"Repainting" became a word with no meaning at all the way it is used and when someone tried to apply it to analysis all he/she showed is a complete lack of knowledge what he/she is taking about
___________________________________________
Leaving this subject now, I think that there is no use of "explaining the obvious" too much. Btw: I do not think that nrp indicators give wrong signals (i know a couple that some would call a "magic" ones with proper usage). With some analysis added a signal is just a signal, and if it is wrong or right is determined with what is done afterwardsCan we make this post a sticky?
...
visual example of: "(i know a couple that some would call a "magic" ones with proper usage)" ?
Whats funny is that you don't need any indicator to trade cycles; The only settings that you need is to stare at the chart to spot the cycle , provided you know the definition of a cycle.
I started learning about cycles by trading naked charts, then I started to create rules to spot a cycles and NONE of those rules use ANY indicator simply lines I create on the chart, in fact few days ago I asked mladen help to name some of those lines as they are too many
The only thing you need , you already have . Your own eyes.
cycles are there with or without Fourier they can be easily spotted.
BTW I closed my trade before i made the post , as I don't give recommendations
...
not a single thread on this forum consists of more teasing than this one:)...
not a single thread on this forum consists of more teasing than this one:)...
Wasn't meant for teasing , its an eye opener
Few years back when Simba told me about moon cycles I laughed , and it took me years to understand and learn about cycles and know he was right. Years of academic studies and research, and not the typical search fourm kind research as thats useless.
If it helps you I personally think many of the ideas and books I read about cycles including Hurst and delta phenomena are wrong , but they are as close to the right as it can be, so their wrong is the best published right.
I am saving you the troubles to believe or not, and letting you know that cycles exists, and there is no magic indicator to spot them , The Fourier indicator maybe the best thing available on this topic , however I stated long ago that in order to use Fourier you need to know the cycle length otherwise its just a nice sine waves on the chart.
BTW I tried to remove the post so you wont feel bad but I couldn't so will ask the admin to remove it
...
cycles do exist...only sometimes price is mute to them...I did not feel bad:)...it's just funny how this thread works...
cycles do exist...only sometimes price is mute to them...I did not feel bad:)...it's just funny how this thread works...
What exactly are you looking for Pava?