Discussion of article "Brute force approach to pattern search" - page 7
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
Forces, of course, are conditional - these are the actions of price formation "above/below" (bulls/bears). The inducing amplitude is the price amplitude in the form of an active impulse at the base of the trend, which most market participants perceive as the beginning of the trend.
Well, you can not be so obsessive, at every occasion, mention your printed-unpaid-commercial labour :-)
Firstly, we send it to everyone free of charge.
Secondly, the mentioning is not about labour, but about theory, and these are different things.
I am sorry, but I have no desire to study your jumble of words reflecting your personal vision of the market. There are not "conditional" but real forces in the market, and the task of technical analysis is to identify these forces and quantify them, i.e. to calculate vectors, mass, acceleration, etc. Everything else is blah-blah-blah. Read B.Williams (available for free).
There are no physical forces in the market, these forces are conditional - the desire of bulls and bears. And about mass - this is blah-blah-blah - there is no mass on financial markets, but there is volume (read B.Williams in free access). As for studying - not studying, it is your choice.
I didn't say anything about the content, although I'm generally guessing that there's butter oil and pihanina of your other products in there.
Only about what is in plain sight: you persistently promote in various threads some unknown non-free content in a specific mystifying manner.
You don't show anything, that's the thing. You just go around talking about your cat in the bag.
All you do is talk about content without knowing it.
And who are you anyway, no name, no surname, just vile chatter!
Identify yourself at last and show your labours, which are "not pihanina".
Does each instrument have its own unique pattern or is there a set of elements that are more or less inherent to a particular trading instrument?
How many bars are needed to detect a change in scale is a question of lag.
All instruments have the same pattern, but its characteristics are adjusted based on the statistical characteristics of the instrument. I do not use bars, but blocks of n points. The lag also depends on the instrument characteristics. If the instrument is trending, the lag is up to 1.5 blocks, if it is flat, it is up to 4 blocks. It is corrected separately for buy/sell positions. Because stocks, for example, are more trendy on the upside than on the downside.
A lot of mysterious - interesting, but without details, the idea of the process is weak.
I.e. you change the window until, conditionally speaking, you get a certain geometric shape in this window?
All right, don't fight. Let's get to the point. Who is interested in deep analysis using my programme? Especially since I have just modified it, now the series takes into account the High and Low, that is, everything will be more accurate and better. I can write a large article with a deep analysis of any timeframe, you can even write several. Is anyone interested in this?
Write - it is interesting.
All of this is interesting, but based on the completely wrong assumption that price should and will fluctuate at the level of expectation. (this is the problem with all economic and social theories).
I can't boast of scientific works (I don't need them somehow), but I decided to share with you a simple observation based solely on logic. Everything has its beginning and its end, everything flows and changes. So where is the logical basis for the permanence of anything? Meta-expectation (my term, but not patented), unlike mato-expectation, tells us that we will all die someday. If you've picked up on the fact that the market is patterned rather than chaotic, be consistent - the most important pattern is that expectation doesn't work. The meta-expectation is that the trend will someday end, die, and a new trend will start. It's more complicated than simply expecting that tomorrow will be the same as today. But, in my opinion, it is the only way to jump out of dancing around useless expectation.
All of this is interesting, but based on the completely wrong assumption that price should and will fluctuate at the level of expectation. (this is the problem with all economic and social theories).
I can't boast of scientific works (I don't need them somehow), but I decided to share with you a simple observation based solely on logic. Everything has its beginning and its end, everything flows and changes. So where is the logical basis for the permanence of anything? Meta-expectation (my term, but not patented), unlike mato-expectation, tells us that we are all going to die someday. If you've picked up on the fact that the market is patterned rather than chaotic, be consistent - the most important pattern is that expectation doesn't work. The meta-expectation is that the trend will someday end, die, and a new trend will start. It's more complicated than simply expecting that tomorrow will be the same as today. But, in my opinion, it is the only way to jump out of dancing around useless expectation.
You still have to dance from some regularity, read my article about the grid and martin, there is a formula, look at it and you will realise that knowing the future at least some of its parameters is vital to get something. The assumption that we know nothing and will never know anything leads to the fact that there is no sense to trade in principle, you will only give money to the broker from each deal, that's all. And about the fact that the trend will end it is true, in this connection we can count on a small continuation and reversal or only reversal.