Why do signal and advisor sellers sell their products and not use them themselves? - 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
So why break down the main point to a specific fact? Or do you think that logical thinking in trading is not so important, and can be useful only in some moments of trading?
If you mean fundamental trading, then I'm sure that formal logic has a great influence on strategic thinking.
But if you mean pure algorithmic trading (without fundamentals), then I'm surprised that a well-developed formal logic will go far. I believe that the movement of forex quotes has its own logic with a much higher level than the formal one.
p.s. I used to take up chess myself in order to train my strategic thinking, but, alas, was disappointed in its effectiveness. Realised that good efficiency for application in practice is trained only in the early stages, but after passing to a more professional stage the effect is the opposite, rather specific, unfortunately. Although I don't doubt that it's easy to meet a generalist among chess players.
But if you mean pure algorithmic trading (without fundamentals), in which case I am personally a bit surprised that you can get far away on a well-developed formal logic. I think that forex quotes movement has its own logic with much higher level than the formal one.
I believe that the movement of forex quotes has its own logic with a much higher level than the formal one.
If a person cannot intellectually transcend his or her "formal" logic, if he or she is chained to his or her paradigm (doctrine), then such a person cannot be called intelligent.
Maybe you are right, but for me it is "pure algorithmic trading (without fundamentals)", and it is enough for me, because the "fundamentals", in my opinion, are less informative and not unambiguous than the analysis. And moreover "one should not look for the good in the beginning" and if it works, I do not even want to look in other directions.
what do you mean? and what is this formal logic? there is such a thing as intelligence. developed intelligence also implies creativity (although I don't like that word). if a person cannot intellectually transcend
If a person cannot intellectually transcend his or her "formal" logic, if he or she is chained to his or her paradigm (doctrine), then such a person cannot be called intelligent.
4 laws of logic. I see no point in explaining more about formal logic. You can read a lot about it somewhere.
I will not write much about intelligence. I will only say that intelligence is divided into 2 main: logical and emotional. These are the two main groups. Although, of course, there are more.
In fact, intelligence is probably the only concept that has an infinite number of definitions...
I don't know what kind of trader you are, but as a chess player you're nothing. You don't even have a 1st degree in chess. So your "confidence" isn't based on anything - childish reasoning about squares...
"No chess player... not even a first-rate chess player" - how can you say that? - You must be offended... sorry I don't agree with your point of view.
As a programmer and a mathematician:
if it's possible to write a program that will always beat you at chess, it's possible.
You cannot write a programme that will always beat you at Forex.
I know for a fact that there is a program that never loses at checkers (maximum draw).
Chess - if you play such a programme against it, it will always be a draw.
Forrest - if you run such programmes everywhere - there will be no draw - it will be a smooth defeat
p.s. we can play chess, if you don't mind
"No chess player... not even a 1st rank" - how can you judge like that? - You must be offended... I'm sorry for disagreeing with your point of view.
As a programmer and a mathematician:
if it's possible to write a program that will always beat you at chess, it's possible.
You cannot write a programme that will always beat you at Forex.
I know for a fact that there is a program that never loses at checkers (draws at most).
Chess - if you set such a program against it, it will always be a draw.
Forrest - if you run such programmes everywhere - there will be no draw - it will be a smooth defeat
p.s. we can play chess, if you don't mind
And the market doesn't need to be controlled.
In chess:
You are left with a king, a knight and a rook, and your opponent has one king.
It would seem that you are in control. But you can ruin it, too, if you want to.
In the market, you can also control the situation when, for example, your profitable position is protected by a trailing stop. But it can also be screwed up.
Dear associate,
I'll repeat it again: "The market - you don't control.
Your position all you want, but not the market situation.
Dear associate,
I will repeat once again "the market - you are not in control".
Your position all you like, but not the market situation.
what do you mean? and what is this formal logic? there is such a thing as intelligence. a developed intelligence also implies creativity (although I do not like the word). if a person cannot intellectually transcend
If a person cannot intellectually transcend his or her "formal" logic, if he or she is chained to his or her paradigm (doctrine), then such a person cannot be called intelligent.
Well, now you have lowered intellectuals as a social category...
Maybe you have confused the terms "intellectual" and "intellectual" (as bohemians and bohemians are often confused), although both are in fact not obliged to engage in intellectual work professionally.
Moreover, man is always 'chained' to certain doctrines, say, the earth is a sphere; atoms exist independently of your consciousness; a woman must bear children, support fire and carry shells... etc.
So I would put it a little more mildly - facts are always enough... Not enough fantasy.
P.S. I prefer Russian 'creativity' instead of English 'creativity'