Breaking through the morning flat - page 22
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
In fact, only wise, timbo and I know how the market works.
That's right! Not the system. Fibo levels don't work.
It is unprovable. The proof of workability is a statistically significant correct test. To prove unworkable is to test all the many possible applications of Fibo.
Citizen, stop clowning around.
I won't do it again. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm for YOU.
And we'll go to the north.
it is unprovable. Proof of workability is a statistically significant correct test. Proof of non-functionality is to test all the many possible applications of Fibo.
As already mentioned, the presumption of guilt applies. Until a strategy is proven to work, it does not work. And one of the reasons for that is the one you quoted.
As has already been said, there is a presumption of guilt. Until a strategy is proven to work, it does not work. And one of the reasons for that is the one you cited.
>> where to tomorrow?
timbo - why all pairs? You understand that every tool has its own character.
Or do you really think that a system that works on GBPJPY, for example, should do the same on EURGBP?
It all depends on what kind of patterns the system uses. If mathematical, they will work everywhere, on any pairs, on any markets. If they are behavioural, then probably they will be limited to some clusters of pairs. Although, for example, the rule of levels on "round" numbers works everywhere, why wouldn't fibs also work if it does work. If the strategy only works on one pair, only at night and only in one particular DC, that's ... you know.
i remember the same thing you said about the result
but his viac account went from 2007 to 2009 from 3k to 17... that's your "monkey's" luck too.
well that's a point of view too...
You're missing the point. Back then everyone kept saying that the championship showed something. And my test showed that Batter's result could have been obtained at random, and therefore the championship result could not be considered proof of the workability of auto-trading. My test didn't say anything about the Batter itself, I wasn't testing the Batter, I was testing the championship.
Statistical significance is determined by whether the same result can be obtained at random. If we test a method and find that exactly the same result could be obtained randomly with, for example, a 5% probability, then that method is deemed to have failed. Even if it is a super system - screenshots, stats and students - its workability is considered unproven.
It all depends on which patterns the system uses. If mathematical, they will work everywhere, on any pair, on any market. If they are behavioural, they will probably be limited to certain clusters of pairs. Although, for example, the rule of levels on "round" numbers works everywhere, why wouldn't fibs also work if it does work. If the strategy only works on one pair, only at night and only in one particular DC, that's ... you know.
You missed the point. Then everyone kept saying that the championship showed something. And my test showed that Bettor's result could have been obtained at random, and therefore the championship result could not be considered proof of the workability of auto-trading. My test didn't say anything about the Batter itself, I wasn't testing the Batter, I was testing the championship.
Statistical significance is determined by whether the same result can be obtained at random. If we test a method and find that exactly the same result could be obtained randomly with, for example, a 5% probability, then that method is deemed to have failed. Even if it's a super system - screenshots, stats and students - its workability is considered unproven.
About Batter, I'm all for it.
His EA was trading badly.
I didn't see anything interesting there.
Yeah. Yeah, bad.
Just not a goat.