Market etiquette or good manners in a minefield - page 77
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
Here, I don't remember exactly, but if I'm not mistaken, the statistical advantage (specifically for "forex rows"), for kagi turns out to be almost negligible. It can only be recouped by a very, very long presence in the market, and given an unreliable MM, it's virtually impossible. Or am I wrong?
Yes, any meaningful advantage is very difficult to gain. I speak only for myself, others may have different results.
And here, by the way, is a breakdown of the Open, m1, GBPUSD series with a threshold of 10 spreads (i.e. 30 pips) :
I think it's very clear. Certainly better than the timeframe breakdown
I'm afraid, with such unexpected insights from you, I'll never get to see a magic kagi algorithm that's no more complex than renko.
You probably didn't notice (or didn't want to notice) that in the post above, I apologised to you for my incorrect statement and harsh tone towards you!
I don't have to remember the contents of the dissertation by heart - it's unnecessary. For the level of forum communication, this, I believe, is quite enough, especially since I am always ready to publicly "roll back" in case of inaccuracy on my part. You, for some reason, insist on taking the position of my public censor... It is certainly useful, but the mentor-like tone in which you make my "remarks" on matters that are not really crucial in the context of communication, leads me to believe that you have an inferiority complex.
Once again: I could be wrong and misguided. There is no need to put me in a posture of justification. We are talking to you as equals and discussing this or that issue, remember that at last.
As for the three line code, I wasn't building the Kagi breakdown, I was building the entry/exit points. In that sense, I'm wrong, and Kagi-building (in the sense you expressed above and with which I agree) is more complicated, and won't fit into three lines. If this is true, then I will publicly admit that I don't have code in three lines. But I will repeat myself by stating that for token points, the complexity of Renko and Kaga code is the same and fits into three lines of which two if-blocks and three assignment operators.
And, 2H has no dimensionality because it's just 2 or so. There are no points there, because you can't compare H-waves in points, which means there is always a dimensionless conversion. That's a matter of taste, though.
2H is dimensionless because you want it that way, or do you have such a peculiar humour?
2H, is 2 multiplied by H, where 2 is a dimensionless constant, H is a parameter of division of initial BP along vertical axis, which is dimensional by definition and measured in points. The product, understandably, is dimensioned in points.
HideYourRichess, either you tell me what you mean by your "2H has no dimensionality because it's just 2... ", or I will stop discussing this topic with you in view of the obvious nonsense on your part!
And here, by the way, is a breakdown of the Open, m1, GBPUSD series with a 10 spread threshold(i.e. 30 pips) :
I think it's very illustrative. Certainly better than the timeframe breakdown.
What's the best thing about it? The question is not rhetorical.
There's less noise and it's visually clearer. This chart is a minute chart. Particularly, it shows that dealer prefers to sell spreads in bulk starting from 10 pieces, which allows more adequate playing, e.g. with the same zigzag. I'll charge a one-layer with this one in the evening and see what it says.
You probably haven't noticed...
A good and fruitful scientific debate, in high scientific circles, bears all the hallmarks of a stabbing in a dark alley. (c) That's an apology on my part, if anything. I'm just being meticulous, but it's not a complex.
As for the three line code, I wasn't building the Kagi breakdown, but the entry/exit points...
I didn't understand that, now I do. At least let me have a look at this algorithm, it didn't take me so long to figure out what's what for nothing.
2H has no dimension, because you want it so, or you have such a peculiar humour?
2H, is 2 multiplied by H, where 2 is a dimensionless constant, H is the partitioning parameter of the original BP along the vertical axis, which is dimensional by definition and measured in points. The product, understandably, is dimensioned in points.
HideYourRichess, either you tell me what you mean by your "2H has no dimensionality because it's just 2... ", or I will stop discussing this topic with you in view of the obvious nonsense on your part!
2H is a symbol. It can represent two units of something, you can talk about dimensions from this point. But, 2H is also just a symbol for a dimensionless quantity. In this case we are talking about Hvol/H=2. There are no dimensions here. Nvol/H>2 is simply denoted by >2H. This symbolises the comparison of dimensionless values, no one mentions pips or anything else.
Then we are talking about the same thing.
Neutron, have you come across this book?
http://www.logobook.ru/prod_show.php?object_uid=11150699
I think I know what timeframes are now. It's the best way to destroy useful information. I.e. in order to build an acceptable timeframe breakdown, you have to set a threshold > 10 spreads(preferably 25). However, with such a partitioning there is a deficit of statistical material, so I tried to build it from hourlies. The result: for a more or less adequate decomposition a threshold of 80 (or better 100) spreads was required! Translated into Russian this means 300 points, gentlemen! I wonder if there is any trader who is able to withstand such drawdowns.
Obviously, I'll have to get into the business of collecting ticks after all.
to Neutron
Apparently I haven't gotten to the bottom of why the question was "not rhetorical" yet. Give me a hint sometime. And there is another stupid question, but on a hot topic:
As far as I understood you and HideYourRichess, the calculation of volatility on the resulting series is the simplest thing - multiply H(taken in pips) by 2 and you get Hvol. However, some time ago you said that there are +H > 2 and -H < 2 (maybe I confused something) and the work with the resulting series, depending on what H will be exactly the opposite. Here's the question, actually:
1. How can H be < 2, if the minimum possible H=1(i.e. one point)? If H is taken in the price of a quote, how can it be > 2?
2. So far I normalized the data fed to the grid input by the doubled volatility of the studied series. I assume the same way(all this confusion inspired by the 2H dispute) -:)
However, I still prefer to ask.
P.S. There is an opinion that truth is born in disputes, but all my life I have observed how it is lost in them. You and HideYourRichess seem to have it all figured out, but your arguments make my head spin. I'm about to start doubting that 2 x 2 = 4 -:) ... and a consilium of mathematicians with knives in the alley.
P.S. There is an opinion that truth is born in arguments, but all my life I have seen how it is lost in them. It seems that you and HideYourRichess have laid everything out, but your arguments are a mess in my head. I'm about to start doubting that 2 x 2 = 4 -:) ... and a consilium of mathematicians with knives in the alley.
Colleagues were talking about different things, but coincidentally bearing the same names. So there's nothing surprising about the loss of "no truth". :о)
In terms of performance - not everything is smooth, but there are definitely encouraging signs.