Stereo Neuro Net - page 9
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
Has anyone summed it up? Or are we still on the same page? no time to read so many pages, the first question, the last one is a different topic altogether
Sloth is the engine of progress.... Somewhere from here https://forum.mql4.com/ru/11661/page16
To finish another trend-flat discussion let me quote from that thread: . ..We didn't try to find the answer how to distinguish a trend from a flat, we made this distinction externally . That is why these criteria (the division into a trend and a flat) is a choice (subjective or set by parameters/conditions of the TS) of the one setting these criteria. That's why Privateal will be right, if he sets the criterion of 0 points and considers that there is no flat at all, but only movement, and I will be right, if I take the entire market that doesn't move anywhere as a stationary condition. This is the choice of reference point.
Something comes to mind.
There is a crowd outside. Two people are arguing until they can't hear a word. This is white and this is black. The other one isn't, it's the other way around. A wise man walks up. He listens to one. And he says you're right. He listens to the 2nd, and says you're right too. Then the 3rd comes in and says it can't be like that. They're saying the opposite things.
The wise man thinks about it and says YOU ARE RIGHT :-)) )
Thanks, I noticed that the thread poses the question in a slightly different way) it's even better
tired of giving the same link in all posts, but for some reason it is good for all the discussions I have participated in, also in this thread there is an attempt to answer about the prevalence of flat/trends based on the average lifetime of losing and profitable trades
'MathRand() function'
There is another way to determine the flat/trend, also not related to the price, but it is at the stage of zero cycle to tell about it
--
Trying to build a price model based on the price, as my esteemed Prival suggests, means to come to the negation of the flat
there is no difference whether a person runs or walks, they simply move their legs in sequence, moreover sports walkers reach speeds comparable to running of an untrained person
for whom does this difference exist? for the social context in which a person is moving
if he's running from a policeman, he could be a criminal.
if he's running in a race, they'll probably bet on him and make a fortune
if he walks slowly, then he's not in a hurry and he could be a distraction.
etc.
a person's movement is one of the indicators for society to normalise attitudes
--
similarly, trend/flat exists for the context of strategies and can and should be measured by the indirect traces they leave on deposits
they can be measured differently, but not by slope angles and interval height as in your thread (haven't read the whole and carefully) IMHO
That is why Prival will be right having set for himself the criterion of 0 points and believing that there is no flat at all, but only movement, and I will be right having taken the entire market that is not moving anywhere as a stationary state
some kind of philosophical-Buddhist nihilism))) we should finally take our eyes off the price chart and look around for a benchmark of how the economy, investors, traders, exchangers (the euro went up by a rouble and disappeared from circulation), shops, governments, the environment, etc. react to weak and strong movements.
and most importantly - how your deposit reacts to the "market not moving anywhere"
some kind of philosophical-Buddhist nihilism)) we need to finally look away from the price chart and look around for a yardstick of how the economy, investors, traders, exchangers (the euro has gone up by a ruble and disappeared from circulation), shops, governments, the environment, etc. react to weak and strong movements.
Telegram to Rabinovitch: "Worry. Details by letter. Tsukerman."
Telegram to Tsukerman: "What's up? Worried. Rabinovich."
Telegram to Rabinovich: "Worry. Monya seems to have died. Zuckerman."
Telegram to Zuckerman: "Does it seem so or is it? Worried. Rabinovitch."
Telegram to Rabinovitch: "So far yes. Zuckerman."
Somehow it seemed relevant.
And most importantly, how your deposit reacts to a "market that's not moving anywhere".
The deposit wouldn't have moved anywhere, but there's a little "but". In forex (margin trading) you can't just buy the Euro, Pound, Yen, etc. You can only buy them by selling something. Make a trade of one against the other. And this is a fundamental difference.
I looked through that thread, there is as much rubbish there as there is in the formulas.
There is exactly as much rubbish as the "left-wing passers-by" have contributed.
My posts, as in this thread, do not cross the line of lengthy philosophical arguments.
Does anyone have a summary? Or just stick to your guns? I do not have time to read so many pages, the first page asks a question, the last page is on a different topic
To recap.
If we formalize trend / flat from the perspective of making profit (and not from the perspective of physics or philosophy), neither trend nor flat makes money, because they have approximately equal amount of time on the market (+/- 2%). Of course, this is only true for the method used to separate the trend from the flat. But, as sad as it is, the pattern can be seen practically in all tested symbols and timeframes.
I only said rubbish because for several pages I did not see any attempt to formalise or calculate anything, there was only rubbish.
There's exactly as much rubbish as the "left-handed passers-by" have contributed.
And I took another look at the content of this "Stereo Neuro Net" thread,
and if you compare the title to the first post of the thread, I don't get it,
>> who's "left", who's "right"?
When formalising trend/float in terms of profit taking (rather than in terms of physics or philosophy), neither trend nor flat is profitable, as it is present in the market for about the same amount of time (+/- 2%). Of course, this is only true for the method used to separate the trend from the flat. But, as sad as it is, the pattern can be observed practically in all tested symbols and timeframes.
not so sad))
in 'MathRand() function' even random inputs give a profit of 840 runs out of 1000 on period 1999-2009
this is achieved due to prevailing of trend over flat in proportion of about 5 to 1 on large timeframes
On small timeframes Coaster has also confirmed it with charts, of course not with the same effectiveness, although I do not know what conclusions he draws from it, I have voiced my conclusion
So instead of "rubbing" the numbers, and the trend/flat is good, but linked to the price, and that's like looking for a line between walking and running
>> by the way, rosh today used consolidation instead of flat)) i like it better than flat-flat.
The deposit wouldn't move anywhere, but there's a little "but". In forex (margin trading) you can't just buy the Euro, Pound, Yen etc. You can only buy them by selling something. Make a trade of one against the other. And this is a fundamental difference.
can you elaborate on the difference? the difference with what? margin means credit, more risk
the market has not moved, the deposit would not have moved either, but the margin prevents it, do you want to live in a static world?)
I'm afraid this topic is about to get philosophical about personal value.
And I took another look at the contents of this "Stereo Neural Network" thread,
and comparing the title and the first post of this thread, I still don't get it,
>> who's lefty, who's righty?
Basically, apart from the first post, everyone's a lefty.
Including mine.