Hearst index - page 41
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
Y(k) = 2*a*cos(w0)*Y(k+1) - Y(k+2) + X(k) - a*sin(w0)*X(k+1)
I missed the coefficient))) I should correct myself, otherwise they will say...)
Y(k) = 2*a*cos(w0)*Y(k+1) - a^2*Y (k+2) + X(k) - a*sin(w0)*X(k+1)
Yep, that's right: in econometrics the problems are not set correctly!
It also depends, among other things, on the aims of the study.
It's a fiction. Anyway, on forex I don't know any indices which more or less reliably show it. Even taking into account Level II, which some people want to see as a panacea.
why is it a fiction? the simple fact behind it is that the opening of a position is followed by its closing for many market participants (not just speculators). Practically it is mean reversion. It is a mathematical model, such as cointegration.
All return trading strategies use the identification of overbought/oversold conditions. Or do strategies for reversion not work on fx? :)
why is it a fiction? the simple fact behind it is that the opening of a position is followed by its closing for many market participants (not just speculators). Practically it is mean reversion. It is a mathematical model, such as cointegration.
All return trading strategies use the identification of overbought/oversold conditions. Or do rebound strategies not work on fx? :)
It is often said that getting the problem right is half the solution. This is a fair but incomplete idea. We should clarify: Since the correct formulation of the problem is half the solution, it is up to the inventor to "correct" the problem. You can't demand, "Get the problem right, then I'll solve it. Getting the conditions of the problem right is the solution process. A perfectly correct inventive problem ceases to be a problem, and its solution becomes obvious.
At first, the problem is hidden in the inventive situation. You have to be able to isolate it. It also happens that the inventor is offered an already identified problem, but it is highlighted incorrectly. In such cases, you have to return from the wrong problem to the original situation and then solve the new problem.
Altshuller G. S., Selyutsky A. B., Wings for Icarus: how to solve problems of invention, Petrozavodsk, Karelia, 1980
One person, standing on the shore of the ocean, thought: if there is a shore here, there must be another shore".
Another person asked a question: why is time independent, maybe it depends on the speed?
In both cases, these crazy assumptions corresponded to reality. Some people manage to make such assumptions on a qualitative level, but most do not.
About 100 years ago gelstat psychology (I think that's what it was called) was very fashionable. Its essence is as follows. Of all that is in a person's head, he is aware of about 10%. The rest is unaware. Like a ball in water and 10% on top of water. The process of thinking is a ball in the head turns and the person realizes the other parts in his/her head. The question is: does this ball have the right shape in all people? In the sense that it reflects (maybe abstractly) some important, basic things outside our consciousness or not? The alchemists, for example, did not do well and the balls in their heads were of the wrong shape.
If we take a toolkit, thought out, reasonable, coordinated between ourselves and the outside world, then that toolkit will create a ball of the right shape in our head, derived from the toolkit we used.
For example. There is a beautiful toolkit available in all senses - DSP. People who own this toolkit are fine with the ball in their head. In the sense that the ball reflects reality and there is a tool for solving problems. Then these people come to the market and cannot understand why nothing happens on the market! After all, the tool is the right one, which has been tested on very complicated problems. But it does not work.
Now, the insights I wrote about at the beginning depend on the correspondence of the tool in one's mind to the applied area. If you don't have such a tool in your head, and in the form of a proper ball, there will be no results. And we see a lot of people on this forum who are scrambling around here in search of the grail, basically unable to understand how far from the truth they are.
Why is it a fiction? The simple fact is that the opening of a position is followed by its closing for many market participants (not just speculators). Practically, it is a reversal. A mathematical model, such as cointegration.
I can basically imagine how to derive the existence of market fluctuations from a verbal model including 2 extreme states (overbought/oversold) and 2 inverse relationships (greed/positive/ and fear/negative/), I could probably even write an equation...
But how do you derive cointegration from here?
In principle, I can imagine how to derive the existence of market fluctuations from a verbal model including 2 extreme states (overbought/oversold) and 2 feedbacks (greed/positive/ and fear/negative/), I could probably even write an equation...
But how do you derive cointegration from here?
Very simply - the basis of cointegration is the model of "error correction" (ECM - Error Correction Model). To put it simply, it is when short-term changes are corrected depending on the degree of deviation from the long-term dependence. That is the deviation relative to it and we can call it overbought/oversold. An abstract model for mean reversion as well as for other return strategies
very simply - the basis of cointegration is the Error Correction Model (ECM). To put it simply, it is when short-term changes are corrected depending on the degree of deviation from the long-term dependence. That is the deviation relative to it and we can call it overbought/oversold. An abstract model for mean reversion, and indeed for other return strategies
So in addition to the notions of PC/PP is there supposed to be some kind of long term dependence?
of course, there must be processes in the market that carry out such a return. The mass closing of positions is one of those processes. There is also for example spread/pair trading. This is when two assets are linked in terms of investors or consumers (substitutability). And the lag of one asset behind the other is a signal for some to open it short.
Or a classy min-reversal, as a return to some fair price. Not necessarily the average, but maybe even the opening of some period. It depends on what those who create this reversion are guided by.
What is this assumption based on and what is the form of the correlation and whether someone has actually found it in the quotes. After all it is possible to calculate cointegration coefficients for almost any series, but it is important for the assumption that they are constant or at least change little over time, isn't it?
What is this assumption based on and what is the form of dependence and has anyone actually identified it in the quotes. After all it is possible to calculate cointegration coefficient for almost any series, but it is important for the assumption, that they should be constant or at least change little in time?
... for it is a ready-made system))
profitable?)))
i.e. you confirm the existence of a constant or at least predictable cointegration vector?