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
Collect 50 ticks, 45 of them are equal in price and 5 have significant variations.
It is for this reason that the number of ticks can in no way be taken as the number of measurements.
Collect 50 ticks, 45 of them are equal in price, and 5 have significant deviations.
It is for this reason that the number of ticks can in no way be taken as the number of measurements.
It turns out that it's impossible to get the data I need with the accuracy I want :-(((( if I use the MT4 output. But to check the adequacy of the model we need exactly this kind of data series IHMO. The only way out is to form such a series by myself from the file postedby Renat . Too bad, but I don't see any other way out.
Although you must have a sight anyway, it may not be the most accurate, but it's worse than without it.
Collect 50 ticks, 45 of them are equal in price, and 5 have significant deviations.
It is for this reason that the number of ticks can in no way be taken as the number of measurements.
It turns out that it's impossible to get the data I need with the accuracy I want :-(((( if I use the MT4 output. But to check the adequacy of the model we need exactly this kind of data series IHMO. The only way out is to create such a series by myself from the file postedby Renat . Too bad, but I don't see any other way out.
Although you must have a sight anyway, it may not be the most accurate, but it's worse than without it.
The rifle scope also needs to be set up. So it may be better without a scope.
There is another thing: m.o., let's say, works here for better or worse, but dispersion does not work at all, because the distribution of ticks by price is non-Gaussian. We are used to the word "dispersion", but often forget that this statistic is more or less correct only for Gaussian distributions. On distributions with thick tails it is not informative at all.
I agree that if it were NZR, it would cover the required value with the probability of 0.97. If not normal, it would just be less. I think with probability 0.7 for any distribution law that has a mode and variance. If you need, I can give you some calculations, a consequence of Chebyshev's theorem
It would be nice to have a cannon to the sight as well (but it would be better to have a missile). All this is a joke, of course. But we don't have a sight or a cannon yet. But when we will have one. How long we have to wait. And the only missile I know, although I do not remember the name, but the complex was a 9.
That's what I'm saying, I haven't seen that, and that's not what's in your picture. If there was an artificial bar to zhack a hole in time, it would have an opening price equal to the closing price of the previous bar, but that's not what's in the picture.
I agree, it isn't pure form, it is a real tick. 2, 3 and 4 ticks appeared almost simultaneously. The bar appeared at the 2nd tick, so I cannot say if it is an artificial or real tick. More likely it was a real tick, because time interval was more than one minute before appearance of these 3 ticks.
Real ticks are real. There were problems with the connection. And there are also DTs - they give out 2 ticks at a time, so as not to open on the edge of the range.
A little more detail, please.