First sacred cow: "If the trend started, it will continue" - page 42
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 don't remember any of them defining a trend. But I haven't really read them. And none of them seemed to talk about multicurrency (especially Hurst :) ).
Of course. Any formalisation is a reduction, which is by definition private.
Mathemat писал(а) >>
2 Magnatis: if there is anything of interest to me in your thread, I'll join in too.
I would be happy to talk to you in "my" thread :) But, as far as I understand, you're more of a theorist and I'm more of a practitioner. So it is unlikely that you will be interested in "my" thread.
By the way, a simple test for trendiness/flatness: according to Einstein's formula, the average increment of a randomly wandering particle is proportional to the square root of time. Applied to the market: for example the average increment of an hour candle will be equal to the average increment of a minute candle multiplied by the square root of 60 if the market is similar to the SB. If we test it on real data, we will see that the market is flat on short intervals (antipersistent) and simultaneously trending on intervals longer than one hour. To put it simply, trendiness and flatness are present in the market simultaneously
Magnatis, there is no need to pit theory against practice. The most practical electrical engineering is largely based on theory, because it is theory that allows us to understand which phenomena are really important and which we can neglect and why.
I started this thread for a practical purpose, not just for academic chatter. I am tired of hearing the word "trend", which almost always has only an empirical meaning.
I started this thread for a practical purpose, not just academic chitchat. I am tired of hearing the word "trend", which almost always has only an empirical meaning.
and that's the right approach.
What if there are two people talking who have different empirical senses? If one understands an upward trend as a rising series of highs (or lows?), and the other understands it as an increment of more than 50 pips in the last hour?
Would they quickly understand each other?
What if there are two people talking who have different empirical senses? If one understands an upward trend as a rising series of highs (or lows?), and the other understands it as an increment of more than 50 pips in the last hour?
Will they quickly understand each other?
The market will judge :)
Magnatis, не нужно противопоставлять теорию и практику. Самая практичная электротехника во многом основана на теории, т.к. именно теория позволяет понять, какие явления действительно важны, а какими мы можем пренебречь и почему.
Эту ветку я завел с практической целью, а не просто для академической болтовни. Надоело слышать слово "тренд", в которое почти всегда вкладывается только эмпирический смысл.
The point is that practitioners and theorists have different objectives. It would be strange if practice (especially in our field) was not based on theory.
Your "problem" could be solved in a practical way - stop listening to those who speak as you don't like :) // just an illustration of the difference between theorists and practitioners ;)
What if there are two people talking who have different empirical senses? If one understands an upward trend as a rising series of highs (or lows?), and the other understands it as an increment of more than 50 pips in the last hour?
Will they quickly understand each other?
According to you-one of them, or both, is wrong?