Random Flow Theory and FOREX - page 46
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
Once again, you can draw as many zigzags and trends as you like on history. All of them will not be real trends, but imaginary ones, as well as the noise will be imaginary. All this "drawing" on the history will not help predict the future, as it does not reveal the true signal and patterns of true noises.
It's about noise - whether it exists or not - that's all...
I've proven that noise exists otherwise quotes would look like a perfect zigzag (or alternatively a sine wave)
are you obsessed with predicting the future?
one sees electronics everywhere the other gets excited by the word trends.
It was about noise - whether it exists or not - that's all...
I proved that noise exists otherwise the quotes would look like a perfect zigzag (or alternatively a sine wave)
You have proved nothing. Quotes are a perfect zigzag - it's just a matter of scale. But it doesn't mean anything.
You haven't proved anything. Quotes and there is a perfect zigzag - it's just a matter of scale. But it doesn't mean anything.
wrong
If there was no spread and the knee consisted of at least two ticks then there would be a perfect zigzag
Imho about zz
If it were up to me, I'd take it off the list of instruments with no right to a pardon.
for "now" decision making is of no use
to take part in the statistical analysis "was" is not worthy for the same reason
there are many common postulates, they are kings, they only lead us away from the thought.
all imho of course
by the way Timbo and Sabbuk would do well to first agree on what is noise
wrong
If the spread didn't exist and the knee consisted of at least two ticks then it would be a perfect zigzag.
What does that have to do with the spread? The zigzag is based on either bid or ask prices, but not both, so the spread is not relevant. Consequently, three ticks always form a perfect zigzag.
And that doesn't mean or prove anything.
First of all, some people here think that noise doesn't exist.
but they do exist and there are two types
one type is the strongest noise created by the market participants themselves especially speculators
The second type is a technical type.
take silver prices - one shitty broker has 2 decimal places, the other 4 decimal places
Two orders of magnitude different! Clearly the first broker introduces quantization noise
and the threshold filter automatically lowers the density of ticks i.e. increases the sampling noise
What does that have to do with the spread? The zigzag is based on either bid or ask prices, but not both, so the spread is not relevant. Accordingly, three ticks always form a perfect zigzag.
And that means nothing and proves nothing.
What did you want to prove or disprove? that there's no noise? or that the signal doesn't exist?
if the signal didn't exist then the analysis wouldn't exist
one type is the strongest disturbances created by market participants themselves especially speculators
What percentage of ticks do you think those you call speculators make
What percentage of ticks do you think those you call speculators make?
Are you trying to lead me to the conclusion that speculators are increasing the signal/noise with their ticks?
Don't confuse your ass with your thumb.
The technogenic noise is created by the brokers.
and speculators' ticks don't compensate for signal loss
Are you trying to lead me to the conclusion that speculators are increasing the signal/noise with their ticks?
Don't confuse your ass with your thumb.
The technogenic noise is created by the brokers.
and speculators' ticks don't compensate for signal loss.
No
And can you answer the question