Non-dynamic trading. - page 22

New comment
 
barabashkakvn:

I will summarise the intermediate results:

  • Atechnical indicator - there is a definition
  • Indicator in general - no clear definition
  • Price - not clear
  • Time - unclear
Trading without indicators (i.e. without handles and with a naked chart with only bars) is in principle possible, but the calculations are limited to the simplest arithmetic operations - comparing two adjacent values: or the prices of two adjacent bars or the price at two different instants of time.

Your generalizations are based on your personal beliefs.

 

Just because I cannot play every piece of Rachmaninoff and everyone I know cannot do it either, and WE don't care how WE say it's not possible!!! doesn't mean there aren't thousands of musicians who can play even more difficult pieces perfectly.

 
barabashkakvn:

I will summarise the intermediate results:

  • Atechnical indicator - there is a definition
  • Indicator in general - no clear definition
  • Price - not clear
  • Time - not clear
Trading without indicators (i.e. without handles and with a naked chart containing only bars) is in principle possible, but in this case calculations are limited to the simplest arithmetic operations - comparing two neighboring values: either prices of two neighboring bars or prices at two different instants of time.

If comparing prices of two adjacent bars is allowed to be called "unsyndicator trade", it means that candlestick analysis can be called "unsyndicator trade", which is questionable in my opinion, because there are many similar indicators... Even if we take only one of prices: open/close/high/low, and compare only it (which falls under comparison of two adjacent values) - it's already an indication of direction. For example, the current high above the previous high will most often indicate an uptrend in the current TF and a trend in the lower TF.
 
Tapochun:
If comparing prices of two neighbouring bars is allowed to be called "unsyndicated trading", it means that candlestick analysis can also be called "unsyndicated trading", which is debatable in my opinion, because there are many such indicators... Even if we take only one of prices: open/close/high/low, and compare only it (which falls under comparison of two adjacent values) - it's already an indication of direction. For example, the current high above the previous high will most often indicate an uptrend in the current TF and a trend in the lower TF.

In "unsyndicated" trading, price andtick volumes are not used.

 
DC2008:

Price andtick volumes are not used in "non-syndicated" trading.

Then the only situation which in my opinion can be called "unsyndicated" is when you press F9 without looking anywhere and press Buy or Sell. But what is the sense in it?)
 

of course this rabid topic will not go away, but I will still say

from a practical point of view, trading can be considered non-syndicatorial when the time-series data given by the terminal without complex transformations is used

i.e. simple arithmetic is allowed, but calculation of integrals is not

but if the arithmetic is embedded in complex loops, then it is no longer possible

 
Tapochun:
Then the only situation that can be called "chart-free" is when you press F9 without looking anywhere and push Buy or Sell. But what is the sense in it?)

Can a blind person (blindfolded) move around in space? It has been proven that he can. So it is possible to trade with closed eyes (without seeing prices and volumes).

 
DC2008:

Can a blind person (blindfolded) move around in space? It has been proven that he can. So it is possible to trade with closed eyes (without seeing prices and volumes).

A deaf person will be guided by another type of indicators. A sound, for example, can also be an indicator. No one has canceled the sound indicators.

A blind person will touch objects. Without looking, you can determine whether an object is hot or cold. They are also some kind of indicators. ))

 
DC2008:

Can a blind person (blindfolded) move around in space? It has been proven that he can. It is also possible to trade with one's eyes closed (without seeing prices and volumes).

I was not arguing. I asked a question: why? What is the sense in it? It would no longer be trading, but gambling.
 

To be honest, I don't understand the point of this 22-page argument. Who wants to prove what to whom? That trading without indicators is possible? Apparently not. You always rely on something. No one, I am sure, can trade profitably for a long time without paying attention to anything. A change in price is already an indication of direction. The news is an indication. The speed of price change is an indication. Why this argument?

If we apply some assumptions and call as indicators the systems that have, for example, complex cycles, serious mathematical calculations (that is also relative for everyone), etc., then we can argue about something. We must come to a consensus about the indicator, and then the issue will resolve itself. But an argument like that is useless.

1...15161718192021222324252627282930
New comment