Non-dynamic trading. - page 25
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
Addition and subtraction. As soon as you divide, that's it, it's no good.
There is no division. I just add up the closing prices of the last 10 bars. I call it all dDecisionValue. I add tenclose prices of the last (one) bar. I call it all dControlValue. And I compare it. If the control is higher - I open position up. If control has become lower - I open down. On the pounddollar days for 1975 - excellent profit.
Yes, except that it is a price indicator for certain time periods and this indicator cannot be changed/redrawn by the user. And another thing - the user cannot create the colouring of this chart - of course he can create a custom indicator with a drawing style, but it is not a real chart.
It is better to define what is time and what is price.
So we have already decided. The same as with the indicators. Or maybe we have to start all over again? )))
You mean:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
Trackless trading.
Speculator_, 2014.11.13 18:28
Suggestion.
I would suggest to use time and price as the simplest indicator, as these parameters are not calculated by the machine. And conditionally call it indicatorless.
But everything that is calculated based on the time and price is a complex indicator. And we should conditionally call it as an indicator.
And we exclude robots and Expert Advisors. As they consist of simple and complex indicators.
You mean:
This is not my message.
Or is the goal to get everyone to accept the same definitions? As this thread has shown, that's impossible. ))
My opinion is this:
There can be no unsuccessful trading unless it is 100% random, when trades are made at random.
My opinion is...
It's a rather strange thread in general... Twenty-five pages of people going from nothing to nothing is very reminiscent of psychological vampirism of the "Helpless Person" type. The vampire poses a problem and the donors try to solve it. But no matter what the donors come up with, the vampire will always have an objection as to why the donors' proposal is no good.
The author wants to know if there is a "syndicatorless" trade, but he does not get a clear definition of an indicator - the definition changes depending on the situation. At first it means "no handles". Then it turned out to be "no calculations" but not all of them. Then it turned out that a pattern is in principle an indicator too, though only comparisons are enough for it...
You people, until the author clearly defines the notion of "indicator" and "non-indicator" you cannot answer his question.
...
My opinion is this...
Anatoly, you are an authority on novice developers and the author of many recipes, BUT you make such categorical statements:
Trading without indication is impossible, unless it is 100% random, when trades are made at random.
How come? If you do not have a recipe for unsyndicator trading, then why claim: it is impossible? You just don't know them. Maybe it makes sense to study other people's unsyndicator trading recipes?
Anatoly, you are an authority on novice developers and the author of many recipes, BUT you make such categorical statements:
How could it be? If you don't have a recipe for index-free trading, then why claim: it is impossible? You just don't know them. Maybe it makes sense to study the recipes of non-syndicated trading from others?
Well, tell us how your EA trades without any idea of what's going on.
So tell us how your EA trades without a clue as to what is going on.
In other words, why don't you tell us how?
Why should I? I'm crazy, according to you. Only you know what you can and can't do. You're the one who knows what you can and can't do. But do not speak for everyone and make categorical statements: that a "non-syndicated" trade is impossible.