Dedicated to co-founders and beginners - page 7
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
I read it. I got a little creepy.
I clicked on the link from this site and it made it even more fun :-) http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/533890 I understood it was the site of the person who gave the interview. >> it's a good review.
Have you read the interview?
It's worth reading.
I have read it, of course. And the book last year, I think someone on this forum gave me the link.
And what else did you want to bring to your mind in connection with the information given in the interview?
Andrei Kobyakov, Mikhail Khazin
The decline of the dollar empire and the end of Pax Americana
2Xadviser
The game you modelled is conspiracy theory inspired and contrived. If you wanted to simulate a speculative game, you should have taken into account that the position holding time of an individual speculator is unknown "from above". And when you moved against the majority, you took an excessive position on your chest. And according to the rule "always move against the majority" your excess position will continue to grow. To implement this, there must be a single market maker to which all trades of all instruments involved in the instrument (spot, futures, derivatives) are lined up, and the equity of this player must exceed the equity of all other players combined on those markets. Who is this in the real world of the currency markets? Not one bank, not one central bank meets these conditions.
It is much easier to have an average neutral position and have a commission on turnover. Where a market maker is forced to take large positions on themselves, effectively getting into huge debt - sooner or later they will go bankrupt. Which is what is happening now to a number of investment companies on certain specific derivatives.
For practical application, however, we will only need conclusions. On average, the price tends to maintain an equilibrium at this level as well, i.e. to maintain a 50/50 ratio between the Trend and the Flat movement. That is, if the price fails to maintain the symmetry, it will stay in the equilibrium state longer and vice versa at all levels. However, it is impossible to predict the moments of transition from one state to the other due to the reason discussed in Part 1.
The price doesn't tend to keep symmetry compensating one state with another one and 50/50 statistics is based on the properties of large numbers and the formula for probability calculation itself. Let's take the incremental (O-C) analysis for simplicity. Let's sum them up on a long period, divide them by the number of bars involved and obtain 0 on the average. It doesn't mean that the price remembers the up increments and compensates for them by the down increments, it just means that the numerator has grown much slower than the denominator.
By "fluke" (so far) there is not only one such pair in the market and their totality defines a market property. That property is EQUITY. And while all (!) stocks may fall in price at one moment of time (which we see happening), the charts of currencies cannot all be directed downwards. That is, currencies cannot all go against all! This is the "Achilles' heel" of the Forex market and its fundamental difference from the stock market. How to grab it by this heel?
This is not a property of the Forex market. It is a property of a closed system, but FX is not (currencies are changed to buy some commodity, to invest, etc.). And the fact that indexes behave symmetrically is understandable - they are expressed through the same pairs (dependent). Similarly, the stock/ruble pair is traded on the fund and it will be symmetrical to the ruble/share exchange rate. If you wish, you can consider for more stocks/stock indexes and for several currencies (for currencies too, you will need to enter indices based on the instruments in question only).
...
>> thank you so much as a human being.
Thank you very much as a human being.
Timbo, you are trying in vain to get into adult conversations.
timbo, you are trying in vain to get into adult conversations.
Get out of here boy, keep reading conspiracy nonsense.
Get out of here, boy, keep reading conspiracy nonsense.
Reread your posts and think about your behaviour.
In one of your posts the man asked you for perfectly normal advice - to recommend something to read. In response, you spouted off a link with a request to Amazon returning 14,000 (am I wrong?) links. You're being completely irrelevant, just for the sake of scolding.
When you were talking to me, you were talking about credit cards without any idea of how the payments are made.
You wouldn't get into something you don't know about.
And now you're getting into something you don't mean. What was the point of your post? You just wanted to show that you read the thread? So read it, no one's pushing you!
In life it is often more useful to be silent and listen/read/think than to muck about.
I've read it, of course. And the book last year, I think someone on this forum gave me the link.
Was there anything else you wanted to say in relation to the information given in the interview?
Strange as it may seem, I read that book too :)
I didn't want to make any special point, I gave you a link to acquaint the forum members with it.
It seems to me that if the dollar gets hyperinflationed, there will be huge fluctuations on FX (and a fortune can be made on it :) )
-
I wanted to ask you, Xadviser, about one indicator. In this illustration there is a price channel with an amplitude of (approximately) 60 pips. Is it your indicator or did you read about it somewhere? I am "purely interested in sport" :) The thing is, I used it myself(here it is 3 instances on the chart), but I haven't found its description in literature, though the need in it appeared by itself (when I was looking at the rates I came to conclusion, that it fluctuates in corridors) and it was useful till mid September.
Get out of here, boy, keep reading conspiracy nonsense.
You got everybody delusional.
If you're so smart, you ain't no millionaire. Stop poking everybody.
I corrected you, I corrected you, but not like that. You're just picking on other words, but you don't have the strength to correct them, so you yell nonsense.
An intelligent person would not get into an argument. And if he does, he will get out first, even if he is right. He will never be like you to the end repeating his own ideas ... and call someone else's thoughts nonsense. For if a person does not know how to listen to and/or ignore other people's opinions, he is worthless.