
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
Hello all. The topic of the thread is a well-known, tortured and even, one might say, trite classic statement.
Although the topic is muddied, it is basic. First of all, a preamble.
I've been following the forum for almost a year and noticed that many interesting topics have been killed by highly qualified forum members professionally associated with the word "probability", in particular Mathemat .
Central to me is the notion of pattern
There, right man speaks. I've come to that too.
Hi all.
Of course, I'm not suggesting anyone here to do this, but here's my question: what is your own understanding of this almost platitude?
P.S. By the way, why don't we say "if the flat started, it will continue"?
Imho, all the answers are right before the questions. Apparently people have gone a bit sideways, so we can continue in private. If you need any help, I'll try to help.
ZZZH because the flat state is unstable.
Who told you that it will fall off? What are you guaranteed to find out with the help of higher TFs?
IMHO, what helps in this case (and only to a very small extent) is wave analysis, and just on the lower TFs. Then we will know if it is, say, the fifth wave has ended or only the first one...
The whole price moves within certain limits of the channel, when the price exceeds these limits (for me these limits are percentage limits of the channel) the movement either fades in this direction or the reversal takes place, the price has passed these boundary conditions of the reversal can be confidently told only by looking at the higher TF with deep analysis of several parameters... Sometimes the price may make a 30 point reverse and then continue in the direction it was moving, then it turns out, with no additional data closed
ZYZH because the flat state is unstable.
Back at the end of 2007 I was watching the EURUSD charts watching the price freeze for 2 hours, then it would come back to life and make moves again, you can try to find the quotes of this period, and set the terminal so that you can say based on the work done that in those cases, after the flat - the trend will go in the direction that the system indicates...
Imho, all the answers are right in front of the questions. Apparently people have gone a bit sideways, so you can continue in private. If you need any help, I'll do my best to help.
You may be right about the topic getting sideways, but my answer to that question was shown above in the form of a picture
what could be more trivial and accurate for trend detection
http://www.forextimes.ru/article/a28160.htm
what could be more trivial and accurate for trend detection
http://www.forextimes.ru/article/a28160.htm
I can't agree about the triviality of trend definition. The definition I adhere to "direction between two reversals" as I showed earlier in the forum, is also not unambiguous. It is even worse with other definitions . For example, connecting lows or highs. I have lectured on technical analysis - the basics to people who knew nothing about it. One of my first lectures and of course "trend". Told them, showed schemes, real quotes. Students are much above average - speciality in mathematical statistics, they memorized almost the whole lecture. In a practical lesson, using Metastock, I suggest constructing a trend. Not a single student managed to build anything like that the first time. Not one.
Couldn't agree more about the triviality of the trend definition. The definition I adhere to, "direction between two reversals" as I showed earlier in the forum, is also not unambiguous. Things are even worse with other definitions . For example, connecting lows or highs. I have lectured on technical analysis - the basics to people who knew nothing about it. One of my first lectures and of course "trend". Told them, showed schemes, real quotes. Students are much above average - speciality in mathematical statistics, they memorized almost the whole lecture. In a practical lesson, using Metastock, I suggest constructing a trend. Not a single student managed to build anything like that the first time. Not one.
they didn't read the article http://www.forextimes.ru/article/a28160.htm
otherwise it would be hard not to build a trend using the methodology from this article
Moishe taught it as far back as .... years ago.
And if we consider each completed combination (holding) also as an elementary cell - we have .... TREND
An interesting topic. Not in itself, but the conclusions and implications arising from the reasoning behind it. But I won't talk about them.
The "market" field is so worn out that there is no fresh grass left at all. It's not impossible to discover anything new,
but incredibly difficult in view of the ingrained stereotypes of thinking about the market.
To think in these stereotypes is to trample on the spot. And in our world, like in Wonderland, you have to run very fast
to stay in place, and to move forward, you have to run even faster.
To prove theorems, you need axioms. To prove new theorems (especially if they contradict old ones),
you need new axioms, or a revision of old ones.
Here are concepts of old axioms, which, by the way, are perceived differently by people:
Trend, Flat, Volatility, Risk, Forecast, Forecast Accuracy, etc....
They do not know what science (economics and the like) is all about when no one really knows what it is all about. Or rather, everyone thinks that only they know?
The problem is the lack of clear concepts. For example - a trend. They will talk endlessly about what it is! The same thing will happen if we talk about flat, etc. That's why I stopped reading all sorts of "Elder books" before I've even read the first one in the middle.
I do not pretend to create new postulates in economics. I have created new postulates for myself. You can move on to proving theorems. New theorems.
The creation of a new universal and unified paradigm of trading science by forum participants seems very unlikely, due to the specifics of this area of research, the material interest of each and the desire to keep their know-how secret. The confirmation of this - public invitations to communicate in private.Since the Market is the only legal way to make a lot of money out of money.
First of all, I propose to abandon the concept of trend-flation.
An interesting topic. Not in itself, but the conclusions and implications arising from the reasoning behind it. But I will not speak about them.
...
First of all, I propose to reject the notion - "trend-flat".
That's why I wrote about the article - "Elementary particles" of price charts
and those particles, then there's no need to define a trend