Standard misconceptions in trying to trade in the noise (there was a "Nightmare on MT4 Street") - 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
>>There is no arbitration at all. You just don't know the width of the price flow in forex. Different brokers filter this flow differently, choosing for themselves >>a number of banks whose quotes suit them better. Don't demand perfect conditions - every broker has different prices. And there is no guarantee that tomorrow a broker will not >>change providers and their quotes stream will change. In that case who are you going to blame (and you are!)?
This is a conversation between a mute and a deaf. Renat, reread my posts.
>> The answer is as usual - use the search engine.
I want an answer or link to it, and not just words, buta specific answer. And what has been written - of course it has. I did, too. But you didn't respond, as usual. You won't find any answers to my questions in your quest, I'm sure of it. And if you do - I'll publicly apologize for slander and go to a monastery :)
But I don't understand why some brokerage companies show their demo quotes and not the real ones?
But I don't understand why this brokerage company provides its own demo quotes and the real ones don't?
It is even interesting to hear the name of a brokerage company that sends different real and demo quotes to the client terminal. How did you notice that? Have you compared the history of real and demo quotes for a certain period of time?
It is even interesting to hear the name of the brokerage company that sends different real and demo quotes to the client terminal. How did you notice it? Have you compared the history of real and demo quotes for a certain period?
Well, this is kind of well-known. It has been explained many times that the demo quotes are given by a robot, and the real quotes are given by a human.
And whether the real quotes can be different in one brokerage company is a real question :)
And judging by the fact that my question (not the first one) no one answers - I do not know what to think :)
Even interesting to hear the name of a brokerage company that sends different real and demo quotes to the client terminal. How did you notice that? Have you compared the history of real and demo quotes for a certain period of time?
Well, this is kind of well-known. It has been explained many times that the demo quotes are given by a robot, and the real quotes are given by a human.
And whether the real quotes can be different in one brokerage company is a real question :)
And judging by the fact that nobody answers my question (not the first one) - I don't know what to think :)
Dear developers and their opponents. It seems to me that in order for the discussion to become at least a semblance of constructiveness, the latter should tone down their tone and arrogance a bit.
My opinion is as follows:
1) Developers need to thank them for History Center. Those who argue with them, apparently, don't know what it means when the product is supplied "As is". If you don't want it, don't use it. So you, dear opponents, have no right to blame the developers.
2) And now for the most constructive question. How realistic is it to use quotes from HC? Here my opinion is that their usefulness is at most 30% of what was possible. Since they do make testing inadequate - the volatility on them is HUGE than in quotes from brokers. The proof has already been there. 10 pips difference has also just been said, and with proof too.
The main questions to the developers (not a complaint!) - how do THEY advise to use the tool? They have already admitted that what is given in HC is an average indicator from various banks. That's all. From which banks, how it was averaged - they refused to answer these questions. When asked what EA may be considered "rough" and how it can be tested for "roughness", they didn't answer either. The answer was something along the lines of "if it behaves the same on different stories, then it is a rough Expert Advisor". And this is where the most interesting question comes in. We don't have MULTIPLE stories over 10 years. We only have HC. And how to assess the robustness of an EA?
To the developers: already tell everyone WHERE the quotes come from and HOW they were averaged. And you will stop being harassed. In fact, it is VERY strange that you are hiding it. It begs a certain group of questions. If only you were selling HC - no, it's free. So why not open all the cards?
I don't use HC. It is inadequate for me - I am not satisfied with indicator, I want to have a history of quotes, which WHERE and WHERE have deals been done. Maybe something along the lines of "best price on SPOTs" from some group of big banks. Since you only give an indicator which obviously correlates with quotes at which you can really click and buy, but as has been proven before me, BADly correlates.
2. First let's define our understanding of the term volatility . Unfortunately, the contagion of misspelling the term is spreading across the internet, although yandex honestly suggests searching for the correct version.
You cannot compare kilograms with meters, so even with a ten point difference in quotes the volatility can be of the same order.
What difference, by and large, does it make from which banks/indicators history has been collected in History Center, if any random process has memory depth.
For EURUSD according to data given by Peters in his book Fractal Analysis of Financial Markets. Applying Chaos Theory to Investments and Economics, the pricing process
has a memory depth of 90 days at most on a daily time frame, all beyond that is of vanishing importance for current prices. What 5-10 pips discrepancy
Can we be talking about 5-10 points of difference for small timeframes that are years apart? It is like saying that history repeats itself exactly.
Always use thick-skinned strategies and keep in mind that an attempt to analyze something below NN minutes is (to put it mildly) pure self-deception. So one gets into noise, does not want to accept and acknowledge it, gets problems on slightly different quotes and is still learning. You will have to study for a long time, because you are too lazy to use the search :)
Are you a software developer or a universal trader, who knows absolutely all strategies and knows exactly what is noise, on which timeframe you can trade and on which you cannot? So tell us.
You have announced HC:
As we promised, we will soon release a beta version of the newMetaTrader History Center service. It is a web-based service providing in-depth minute history for many financial instruments (so far only forex).
The function of downloading the history data is integrated in MetaTrader in the History Center window (Tools -> History Center or F2):
After you click on "Download", the missing or modified archives of quotes, grouped by months, will be downloaded. All archives are highly compressed, only modified files will be downloaded and the files are stored in /history/downloads.
After a successful download all the higher timeframes will be automatically rebuilt, which will provide absolutely correct and normalized history for all periods.
For those who work in local networks behind firewalls, you will most likely need to work through a proxy server (enabled in the terminal settings, HTTP/SOCKS4/SOCKS5 servers are supported) or allow direct access to history.metaquotes.net:80
I draw attention to "This is a web service providing deep minute history",
"the minute (M1) charts will be uploaded and all other timeframes from the minute charts will be automatically rebuilt",
"Once successfully uploaded, all higher timeframes will be automatically rebuilt, ensuring absolutely correct and normalised history across all periods."
I asked the question
In EURUSD 1 min gap in history from 29.09.2006 23:55 to 30.10.2006 16:22, in USDCHF 1 min gap from 29.09.06 to 27.10.06 ???