A simple and perfect model of the structure of securities markets - page 3
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
for this year, I understand that there will not be a statement
I will periodically post screenshots of active trades for this year, as in the screenshot above.
Let me remind you, my questions and wishes were based on the post:
But did I write somewhere above, that I made a better walkthrough than some unknown to me British scientists prognosticators?
Or did I insist somewhere above that your branch can only talk about wave marking software?
Not that I know of.
P./S.: In order not to distract you from more global questions, consider mine as rhetorical and qualifying.
No. You didn't say that. But you hinted at it. )
P./S.: Okay.
But it was hinted at. )
No.)
I was talking about something else. But come on.
No software is better at marking than the human brain.
This shows that your marking is subjective, you have no clear rules for marking.
This shows that your markings are subjective, you have no clear rules for markings.
What about yours? As for the rules, you seem to be out of the loop. Read the 2 books in the archive in the first post on Elliott Waves. What are they? Not rules. The codes of Elliott classics cause a lot of problems in practice, but we use only the foundation (as a tool) from which the building is built with clear rules and objectives, and these objectives are unchangeable in contrast to the classics. ))) You get the impression that people are blind or want to be clever in a field where they have no clue. And do not compare an automatic machine with a finger and a human mind. All want to make a machine and sit in the Bahamas counting cockroaches in their heads but this (without prior labor) in our world does not happen, here you have to work hard to eat or sell your soul, though not everyone has it. )
Rest in ignore.
What's yours? About the rules, you seem to be out of touch. Read the 2 books in the archive in the first post on Elliot waves. What's that? Not rules. ))) I have the impression that people are blind or want to be clever on a subject in which they have no clue. And do not compare an asshole with a finger and an automatic machine with the human mind. All want to make a machine and sit in the Bahamas to count cockroaches in their heads but this (without prior labor) in our world does not happen, here you have to work hard to eat or sell your soul, though not everyone has it. )
Rest in ignore.
Once again: if the rules are formalised, then the process of applying them is automatisable. If the process cannot be automated (all sorts of excuses like "you can do it manually, but not programmatically" come into play), then the rules are not formalised enough.
Once again: if the rules are formalised, then the process of applying them can be automated. If the process cannot be automatised (with all sorts of excuses like "you can do it manually, but not programmatically"), then the rules are not formalised enough.
And what about a form that is dynamic. Take any chart and try to correctly mark it according to Elliott. And you will understand that if you cannot. Only practice and only practice gives the experience to see the waves as they are in the model. The automaton cannot follow a constantly changing waveform. One and the same cycle in a circle may jump more than 3 times from one frequency to another. This is something the automaton does not see, but the eye does. Anyway, it's up to you, if you don't like the subject, the door is open, do something more interesting.
Only with my hands.
...Well, if only with his hands, it's not superfluous to link to a post for neophytes
Superfluous. The comrade you cited does not work in favour of the speculator. Do not be fooled. ))) We know him and his methods well. More than once spotted covering up traces of a lucrative direction. Typical accomplice to the casino, which feeds him.
Superfluous. The comrade you cited does not work in favour of the speculator. Do not be fooled. ))) We know him and his methods well. More than once spotted covering up traces of a lucrative direction. A usual accomplice to the casino, which feeds him.
Your targets are transparent. To whom the link is for, clarified. Quoting your post was not a reference to you, it was a quote-justification for posting a link for the moderators.
Removing the link can safely be construed as aiding and abetting the PR of the topicstarter.