Discussion of article "The power of ZigZag (part I). Developing the base class of the indicator" - page 4
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
I use it, for example, to filter characters. At least the number of ticks is reduced by an order of magnitude. I.e. 90% of ticks are useless.
That's the premise that they are useless, and that's where the thoughts on using ZZ in TC come from.
in this way I understand
I hasten to inform you - a modern telephone number has 10 digits - 8-xxx-xxx-xxx-xx-xx-xx, even more, instead of the first eight digits there can be a country code and the next three digits are not a city code at all. If memorising a phone was reduced to 3-4 digits, there would be no problems with memorising it.
The digits to be memorised are combined. Instead of memorising 1,2,3... a person immediately memorises 123. I.e. instead of three separate digits - one digit. Thus, out of 10 different digits, a person produces 3-4 digits, the first of which he throws away if possible, and memorises the rest as "counting". He uses verbal memory, not "digit memory". A person does not perceive the memorised telephone number as a numerical value. If possible, a person uses different techniques, - connects the number or its parts with specific things. It is the success of this procedure that determines the quality of memorisation.
In that vein, I understand
local and composite trends on a platter
The memorised digits are combined. Instead of memorising 1,2,3... a person immediately memorises 123. I.e. instead of three separate digits - one digit. Thus, out of 10 different digits, a person produces 3-4 digits, the first of which he throws away if possible, and memorises the rest as "counting". He uses verbal memory, not "digit memory". The person does not perceive the mathematical value of the memorised telephone number. If possible, a person uses different techniques, - associates the number or its parts with specific things. It is the success of this procedure that determines the quality of memorisation.
This is absolute nonsense about memory in the spirit of the vtyuhivaniki all sorts of magical methods of remembering such as any mnemotechnics or some figurative associations. These methods do not improve memory, they kill it.
...
Faces are only memorised by recognition. Try making a sketch of your own grandmother.
Faces are indeed memorised only by recognition. But, it only speaks about inexhaustible possibilities of visual memory of the person at which subconsciousness does all work on decoding of visual information. Consciousness is not even strained, and everything works almost instantly. This cannot be the case with numbers.
Faces are indeed remembered only by recognition. But, it only speaks about inexhaustible possibilities of visual memory of the person at which subconsciousness does all work on decoding of visual information. Consciousness does not even strain, and everything works almost instantly. This can't happen with numbers.
Why can't it happen with numbers? With numbers it is exactly the same as with everything else. One may not remember a number, but choose the right one from several offered ones, or one may recognise that it is the right one.
local and composite trends on a platter
on history
or you'll memorise all the zig combinations so you can recreate the pattern from memory. What is there to look at? Well, for example, that you have correctly encoded the zigzag. But after that, you don't need the indicator.
Otherwise, you can use a unique method of mental inter\extrapolation - long time poking at the chart with your eyes without indicators, the effect will be even better, because the brain neural network is quite powerful.
It is unknown how complex systems you code. How can you perform complex data analysis without an indicator and ensure its fast operation? You can't.
I don't know what is meant by this and what indicators have to do with it.
Most likely they coded systems of the corresponding level.
Yes, I did not create anything complicated. The Expert Advisor was uploaded to Kodobase, you can take a look at it. There are no indicators in it.
I 100% support this opinion:
you will memorise all zig combinations so that you can reproduce the pattern from memory. What is there to look at? Well, for example, that you have correctly memorised the zigzag. But after that you don't need the indicator.
Where highlighted can be replaced by any indicator.
What is the use of looking at what indicators show (except for debugging that the indicator is written correctly)? When looking at indicator readings, can an idea for a TS be born because some pattern showed up in three/five places?
Is it still possible that the idea of a TS comes from looking at indicators (including price history)?
historically
or you'll memorise all the zig combinations so that you can play the pattern from memory. What's there to look at? Well, for example, that you've encoded the zigzag correctly.
Otherwise, you can apply a unique method of mental inter\extrapolation - long time poking at the chart with your eyes without indicators, the effect will be even better.
The previous and even the current tick is already history, any trend (visualised hidden) is also history.
But at the same time it is also the only shortest way to extract a full (potentially achievable) profit.
So why ignore it!
I don't know what is meant by that and what the indicators have to do with it.
Yes, I did not create anything complicated. The Expert Advisor was uploaded to kodobase, you can take a look at it. There are no indicators in it.
100% support this opinion:
Where highlighted can be replaced with any indicator.
What is the use of viewing what indicators show (except for debugging that the indicator is written correctly)? When looking at the indicator readings, can an idea for a TS be born because some pattern appeared in three/five places?
Do TC ideas still come from looking at indicators (including price history)?
Exactly. Any indicator is based on prices, so when you look at how the current TS works, you can't help but think of how to write the next one, perhaps to enter not by the market, but by pending. After writing it, you look at the visualisations again, and you see that instead of a stop you should try a limit. Then it turns out that you may need to change the indicator calculation, or limit the trading time, or put limits in the night session, and in the day session enter either by the market or with stops, ....
In general, you can't go anywhere without visualisation.