Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 216
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
Either it bounces, or it breaks through).
Exactly the opposite)). There are no levels from which it bounces, there is only movement. Movement is life (just kidding). We work on movement, and we have to look for movement, not a stop (level). Likewise, not imposing, or even proving. This ideology, as well as yours.
The movement is the consequence, the level is the cause, I think that working with the cause is more promising imho + common sense
But it's very hard to algorithmize it, it's much easier to throw on indicators and work with movements, there's nothing to code there, it's very simple...
Today I'm on finmachine. Maybe I will learn something new. Rich program, mostly about banks.
It's a lot easier to hang yourself with indicators and work with movements, there's nothing to code there, it's simple...
You are absolutely right, when working with motions everything is dramatically simplified - there is "nothing to code" there. Moreover, we don't even have to "fill up with indicators", we can see where the movement is going without them). It's even simpler than you think.) A weather vane on a mast or even a finger held up is enough for us to know where the wind is blowing from. And how long it will last and how strong it will be is up to the wind.) We can enter the market at any time and we don't need to wait for any lines, levels, etc., we only need the "wind".
Recognition of the market as a random process saves us from any assumptions about the action of "higher forces" controlling the market, from any attempts to predict anything, from a search for certain predictors, which (due to the inability to find them ourselves) we entrust to the ME, and other unnecessary hypotheses. Even if "higher powers" exist, their actions will still remain largely unpredictable to us, that is, random. None of this matters to us now).
Movement is a consequence, level is a cause, I believe that working with cause is more promising imho + common sense
But it is very difficult to algorithmize it,
You're not a sadomasochist, are you? Why torture yourself so much? And common sense (our speculation about where things will go) is impossible to algorithmize. And about the causes, we tend to learn and understand post-priority, after the consequence comes. Nobody cancelled the principle - do not involve unnecessary hypotheses. And in all hypotheses about "higher forces" controlling the market, and attempts to interpret their actions, this is exactly what is violated.
OK, let's say I'm lost, I don't believe in simple trend-following things, movements, etc., can you prove my wrongness?
I'm willing to listen...
...but substantive, not just trending...
Okay, let's say I'm deluded, I do not believe in simple things like trend tracking, movements, etc., can you prove me wrong in a substantive way?
I'm willing to listen...
but in a substantive way, not just trending...
Well, you can't "substantively prove" the levels either.
You can only compare the effectiveness of systems based on levels and indicators.
Well, levels are also impossible to "substantively prove".
You can only compare the effectiveness of systems based on levels and indicators
If we take as a level what is written in Wikipedia or in those stupid books on technical analysis, then yes, there are no levels at all, but in fact they exist, but to find them through the chart you can only probabilistically, but this is purely from the lack of necessary information and not from the lack of understanding of the process itself
Okay, let's say I'm deluded, I don't believe in simple trend tracking things, movements, etc., can you prove me wrong in a substantive way?
I'm willing to listen...
...but in a substantive way, not just trending...
You know very well that it is impossible to prove the presence or absence of "higher powers" in any way. You can only believe in them - like you, or not.
The existence of "higher forces" etc. is your hypothesis. - is your hypothesis. You believe in it. And so your position is, as you say, "just a trend.... " By the way, I didn't even plan to change your mind).
I stated my position quite clearly - the market is random. This, if not proven, is objectively shown by any randomness tests.
Do you have statistics on these "true" levels?
You understand perfectly well that it is impossible to prove the presence or absence of "higher powers" in principle. One can only believe in them, as you do, or not.
The existence of "higher forces" etc. is your hypothesis. - is your hypothesis. You believe in it. And so your position is, as you say, "just a trend.... "By the way, I didn't even plan to change your mind).
I stated my position clearly enough - the market is random. If it cannot be proved, it can be objectively shown with any randomness tests.