Market patterns - page 13

New comment
 
iModify:
Dear Sir, do you have a complex? No one is stopping you from proving your point, not in words but by live examples.
I have no complexes, I have a love for accuracy and correctness of statements. I have not made unsubstantiated statements such as "all (read - any) systems give N percent...", so I do not need to prove my point.
 
SWA:
I have no complexes, I have a love for accuracy of wording and correctness of statements. I did not make unsubstantiated statements such as "all (read - any) systems give N percent...", so I do not need to prove my point.
It was all correct, you will go through this whole kitchen, then you'll understand everything ... and think with your bot's thinking). And since you do not have a bot, you look at everything through the prism of illusions and are rude to smart students. The figures are as specific as possible, although I have an acquaintance who always looks for a 100% market - it's just human psychology. If the trades go one after the other there's 50-70%, and if you consider eternity, you can get close to 100%).
 
SWA:
I have no complexes, I have a love for accuracy and correctness of statements. I have not made unfounded statements such as "all (read - any) systems give N percent...", so I do not need to prove that I am right.

So you're saying that you can predict the price movement at any time with more than 50% probability?

I agree, there is a TS with 90% of profitable trades, but it does not mean that it is accurate at any given time with more than 50% probability.

 
vspexp:

However, the maths is based on the postulate that 2x2=4

Recently I explained multiplication to my child in an easy-to-understand way. And he showed the proof that 2 * 2 = 4:
Multiplication is an asterisk (*) operation with the following properties:

  1. 1 * a = a.
  2. a * b = b * a.
  3. (a + b) * c = a * c + b * c.

Let us prove the statement that 2 * 2 = 4:

2 * 2 =
(1 + 1) * 2 = apply item 3
= 1 * 2 + 1 * 2 = apply item 1
= 2 + 2 = 4.

 
iModify:

So you're saying that you can predict the price movement at any time with more than 50% probability?

I agree, there is a TS with 90% of profitable trades, but that does not mean that the prediction at a given point in time is accurate with more than 50% probability.

Everyone is very hung up on predicting and studying the market. So it turns out you answered your own question).
 
C-4:
For some reason when it comes to making forecasts everyone implies making predictions based on past price conditions. But is this kind of prediction applicable to all processes? Let's say you are driving a car through a town. You turn left, then right, then you go straight through the intersection. How does your traveled path determine your future trajectory? The answer is obvious - it doesn't. If you now turn left, it is absolutely irrelevant whether you went straight ahead or left at another intersection. That's why motorists look straight ahead, not through the rear window of their car.

So on what basis do we make the assumption that the price movement is determined by its past movement, if even simpler phenomena are useless to analyse from this point of view?

Because predicting based on the future is absurd :)

Wrong conclusions, even from your (not very appropriate example). A motorist drives from point A to point B. And the current situation is the result of past actions, decisions often have to be made with insufficient information (well, the driver did not know that there was a traffic jam on this street). So, one has to change a plan on the fly, and not always optimally. However, the driver is a master of the situation (as long as it doesn't affect others), while on Forex, we follow the market.

Of course, we can assume that our position will reverse the market :) but in practice, any volume of a single trader is as rubbish to the market. And there is no possibility to discuss our joint actions with others.

So it turns out that each trader individually plays against the elements of passions.

A more correct example would be if you imagine a trader as a fisherman that wants to swim from one island to another. You need to consider the current, direction and strength of the wind and waves. In short, the parameters of the elements that he is trying to tame.

Many people write "follow the market" and "the trend is your friend", and they completely ignore forecasting, while we cannot perform a single action without forecasting, even conditioned reflexes are based on well established and practically tested patterns.

If you put all the aforesaid together it turns out that you should make forecasts, but not in order to see the future but to clearly determine where you are at the moment!

There are plenty of excellent methods (the same wizards) that have a small bug that negates everything. This bug is lagging. To fix it, you need a prediction. The better it is, the more reliable TA will work based on it.

 
hrenfx:

Recently I explained multiplication to a child in an easy-to-understand way. And he showed the proof that 2 * 2 = 4:
Multiplication is an asterisk (*) operation with the following properties:

  1. 1 * a = a.
  2. a * b = b * a.
  3. (a + b) * c = a * c + b * c.

Let us prove the statement that 2 * 2 = 4:

2 * 2 =
(1 + 1) * 2 = apply item 3
= 1 * 2 + 1 * 2 = apply item 1
= 2 + 2 = 4.

Your proof is only true in the context of classical arithmetic. But there are many other practically valuable arithmetic and algebra where these properties do not work. Say, the multiplication of Gamelton quaternions is not commutative, i.e. if p q are quaternions, then p*q does not equal q*p. In general, there is no reason to assume that in our world 2*2 equals four and only four, because the experience of obtaining the same result does not say that our models of the world order are the only true ones.
 

The point is that if you replace the word "Multiplication" with any other word, nothing will change in the proof. In this case, a term so similar to the familiar word "Multiplication" is introduced. Introduced means that its definition is given (see three paragraphs).

Similarly, there is a definition of the term "Multiplication" in relation to matrices. And there it already follows as a consequence (not part of the definition) that A * B is not necessarily B * A. Moreover, it is not always defined.

 
C-4:
Your proof is only true in the context of classical arithmetic. But there are many other practically valuable arithmetic and algebra where these properties do not work. Say, the multiplication of Gamelton quaternions is not commutative, i.e. if p q are quaternions, then p*q does not equal q*p. In general there is no reason to assume that in our world 2*2 equals four and only four, because the experience of obtaining the same result does not say that our models of the world order are the only true ones.

Very interesting, has anyone tried to build support/resistance levels based on Lobachevsky geometry?

For me 2*2 is not always 4))

 
C-4:
For some reason, when we talk about forecasting, everyone means forecasting based on the past state of the price. But can this kind of prediction be applied to all the processes? Suppose you are driving a car through a city. You turn left, then right, then you go straight through the intersection. How does your traveled path determine your future trajectory? The answer is obvious - it doesn't. If you now turn left, it is absolutely irrelevant whether you went straight ahead or left at another intersection. That's why motorists look straight ahead, not through the rear window of their car.

So on what basis do we make the assumption that the movement of the price is determined by its past movement, if even simpler phenomena are useless to analyse from this point of view?

The path taken determines the direction. A deviation from the direction, therefore, will lead to a turn in the other direction.

Until we reach a target from which everything repeats itself in the opposite direction.

But since we already know the path, we'll arrive back faster.

And we will drive further.

1...67891011121314151617181920...35
New comment
Reason: