Application of mathematical analysis and higher mathematics - 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
1) When was it possible to trade by crossover averages? ;) Since 1970 we put in a tester and lose the depo, even in that time period, when Bill Gates was still walking under the table. The market has always disliked adventurers with empty heads.
2) About the maths - Don't even look for high science here. Simply by virtue of the fact that the task before us is formulated very simply - on the basis of previous data to determine the nature of market behavior in the future. It is like taking integrals - it seems to be a ridiculous science, but some are fundamentally not expressed in quadrature, take at least the first-order from exp(-x^2), the famous normal distribution (almost).
But just as in integrals, there are MASSES of beautiful tricks, observations, regularities and beautifully solved problems in market prediction, which, while not easy in themselves, do not move us one step towards a theoretical breakthrough.
3) I look at statements such as "the market so and so, the market likes motion and so on". It is necessary to understand WHY the market is this and not that. You won't get far just thinking in terms of charts, alligators and averages. The market is what it is:
f(x) - the number of euros you want to exchange into dollars when the exchange rate EUR/USD = x (and all other things being equal!!!). The f-value is obviously monotonically increasing and if you think about it, you can see that it tends to infinity at infinity, to zero at zero and is concave upwards in the first phase and downwards in the second (downwards is like a logarithm).
g(y) - the number of Dollars to be exchanged into Euros, at USD/EUR = y. Everything that is said about f is also true about g.
Now, the price in the market is obviously based on the equation: f(x) = g(1/x)*1/x, which has a single solution. The reasons for ALL fluctuations are in the changes of the f,g - the demand for the currency. And demand is a thing that depends not on speculators for the most part, but on large international firms. Put yourself in their shoes and think about how YOU ACTUALLY contribute to the cumulative f or g, how you would react to exchange rate increases, etc. That's how I developed the system, which is now being tested, let's see what happens. I.e. speculators play a role, no doubt, but the main contributors are still General Motors, Google, Microsoft, etc. It is the reaction of THEIR money managers to changes in the exchange rate that leads to a change in, say, f - and a subsequent change in the exchange rate. It is such an arch-complicated dynamic system, indeed with feedback.
4) Point 3 was just demagogy on the subject :) And in general, I believe that KNOWLEDGE of higher mathematics in the market does not need a LOT. A little is a must. If a person doesn't know what Geometric Brownian Process is or, which is beyond my comprehension, he claims that he CAN EARN EUROPE IN THE CURRENT MARKET, this person had better not try to enter this market.
But maths skills won't hurt - that's for sure. Because mathematics, above all, is an approach to solving a problem. In order to make money in the market, you have to know how to A L L I Z I R O U S E . I have not met any better analysts than those from mech-mathematics, physics or physics departments. There, everywhere you look in a bank, there is no financial analyst, and if the position is not formal, it is a mathematician/physicist.
4) In general, I believe that you don't need a LOT of higher mathematics in the market. A little is a must. If a person doesn't know what Geometric Brownian Process is, or, which is beyond my comprehension, claims that you can make money in a random market, this person is better off not coming here.
Many people trade forex without any mathematics. They just take ready-made TA tools, well-known TS (for example Ishimoku) and trade quite successfully. Often excessive complication and detailing of the process leads to the opposite result. If it is simple it does not mean bad.
Many people trade forex without knowing any maths. They just take off-the-shelf TA tools, well-known TS (e.g. Ishimoku) and trade quite successfully. Often excessive complication and specification of the process leads to the opposite result. Simple does not mean bad.
Trading systems based on breakout of levels from the flat state (like when playing on the news), use the impulse nature of price movements, and without much mathematics, we can assume that after the lull - there will be movement. In general, generally recognized TPs are not very complex mathematically, though one should not stand still, and development of new mathematical models is very welcome - nobody knows where the "grail" is.
Many people trade forex without knowing any maths. They just take ready-made TA tools, well-known TS (for example Ishimoku) and trade quite successfully. Often excessive complication and specification of the process leads to the opposite result. Simple does not mean bad.
Trading systems based on breakout of levels from the flat state (like when playing on the news), use the impulse nature of price movements, and without much mathematics, we can assume that after the lull - there will be movement. In general, generally recognized TPs are not very complex mathematically, though one should not stand still, and development of new mathematical models is very welcome - nobody knows where the "grail" is.
Many people trade forex without knowing any maths. They just take ready-made TA tools, well-known TS (for example Ishimoku) and trade quite successfully. Often excessive complication and specification of the process leads to the opposite result. Simple does not mean bad.
Trading systems, that use breakout of levels from flat state (like when playing with the news), use the impulse character of price movement, and without any special mathematics we can suppose that after the lull - there will be movement. In general, generally recognized TPs are not very complex mathematically, though one should not stand still and development of new mathematical models is very welcome - nobody knows where the "grail" is.
Many people trade forex without knowing any maths. They just take off-the-shelf TA tools, well-known TS (e.g. Ishimoku) and trade quite successfully. Often excessive complication and specification of the process leads to the opposite result. Just because it is simple does not mean it is bad.
Trading systems that use a level breakout from the flat state (like when playing on the news), use the impulse nature of price movements, and without any special mathematics we can assume that after the lull - there will be movement. In general, generally recognized TPs are not distinguished by great mathematical complexity, though thought should not stand still and the development of new mathematical models can only be welcomed, no one knows where the "grail" lies.
Axiom - there are no a) Common knowledge b) Profitable strategies. It is as obvious as the fact that if you knew, for example, that the price of the instrument is going UP from Thursday to Friday, you would NEVER sell it on Thursday. Where would you find such idiots to play against a common strategy, even if they are not engaged in making money on Forex. Examples - trading on the news - everyone buys, no one sells. It's pretty hard to capitalise on this now, as ALL are now trying to make a penny here. When the crowd comes in, there is no money left on the floor - the market becomes more efficient at some point.
>> No need to guess - where to? At flat the price moves in the channel, at the edges of the channel you put stop orders, then it's easier - breakdown and trawl, that's all mathematics.
If you were right, we would not even know about this amazing fact. If you were right, we wouldn't have known about this amazing fact. So, if you were sitting and drinking daiquiris in the Bahamas, there's no sense in writing mql4. ru makes no sense :)))) As the Americans say - if you're so smart, why are you so poor? (Nothing personal - just a reminder)
If Forex was easy to make money on it, then why doesn't everybody make money on it? Yes because the simplicity of it is just a myth, indoctrinated into everyone for the sake of broker profits. Yes, it is possible to make money. Even a lot. And, unlike the casino, a lot depends on you. But it's ARCHISLOWED. Only having a talent for analysis in general or financial markets in particular can make something. And the method here is one. Read-think-read-think-analyze, etc. The tactic of "read the MT Help, add a couple of indices, get rich" will not work. Because everyone can do it. And in our world either lucksters have money (but then forex is not much different from Shangri-La), or people who ACTUALLY stand out from a lot of others. I don't want to offend anyone - just think when you get something right - WHY HAVE IT BEEN DONE BEFORE ME? There are a lot of people in the Forex market!
That was my response to "No need to guess where? If the flat, the price moves in the channel, on the edges of the channel you put a stop order, then simply breakthrough and trawl, that's the maths. "
Mmm... You tell that to Black-Scholes-Merton, the Nobel laureates, and the very, very many traders who calculate market volatility based on the option value of an instrument and the formula of the aforementioned economists, rather than empirical variance.
UPD
I apologize for the irony - I'm having a bad day.