Signs of a REAL system - page 11
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 forgot to add that it makes a profit with statistical significance.
>> Right. I wanted to add "estimated profit", but I thought it wouldn't help the author of this thread anyway.Yes, yes, mathematically. Random walk is fractal, it cannot be otherwise. The time series (aka random walk) is fractal. Correspondingly, there are no patterns of higher/lower TF => history does not repeat - the basic principle of TA is not fulfilled.
I don't understand what the random walk supporters do on this forum: buy portfolios according to Markowitz and live rich.
Let's look at the beginning of this post, the correct TS if it hasn't been tweaked. I gave six signs of systematicity as an example - nothing like that I've seen on this forum (or any others). The obvious ones are other facts, such as tinkering, that have been chewed on for years.
If the principle of systemicity were discussed, there would never be a discussion of "how to make an unsteady dynamic system stationary" - like humpbacking Apollo the Belvedere.
That is, according to you most people do TC like this: they pile up a bunch of indices, not really knowing for what purpose, and then adjust the parameters. Well... ok... But I cannot even call it a TS.
Look, maybe that's why this question isn't raised, because there's nothing to discuss? Just because it's outside the scope of the TC?
So what most people do with TC is to pile on a bunch of indulators, not really knowing what the purpose is, and then tweak the parameters. Well... ok... But I cannot even call it a TS.
Look, maybe that's why this question is not raised, because there is nothing to discuss? Just because it's outside the scope of TC?
The brain has the property of independent systematization of information, and an experienced trader's TS may intuitively possess this property, even if he didn't set himself such a goal. But an intuitive result and a result obtained on the basis of systematic knowledge are two different results with different labour input.
It's not clear what proponents of random rambling are doing in this forum: rivet portfolios on Markowitz and live rich.
Sometimes there is a desire to pass the time with others.
Sometimes there is a desire to pass the time to others.
I think it's rude to others who are trying to engage on the merits of the topic
So what most people do, according to you, is: they pile up a bunch of indulgences, not really knowing what they're doing, and then they adjust the parameters.
Why, Peter, do you think otherwise? I'm talking about the majority, not everyone of course.
Why would you do that? It makes no sense to separate the engine of a car from the rest of the car. We're always talking about parts of the car,
Exactly so. When a car DOESN'T RUN, what do you think of it as a car? !!!! every manual has signs of trouble. for example some cars won't start driving unless you close all the doors and the driver has his seatbelt fastened. in this case the list with the prefix NOT gives you the creeps? ;) why can't the same methods be applied to the trading system?! it doesn't (correctly) work if there are no stops, stops are calculated like hell, etc. according to the list of the first post. Any student will look at the list of faults and can at least try to "fix" them to go after their profits.
So what most people do with TC is to pile on a bunch of indulators, not really knowing what the purpose is, and then tweak the parameters. Well... ok... But I don't even want to call it a TS.
Listen, maybe that's why this question doesn't come up, because there's nothing to discuss? Just because it's outside the scope of the TC?
- "Girl, girl, why are your legs so crooked?"
- "They're not legs, they're pantyhose."
-"Trader, trader, why is your process so unprofitable?"
-"It's not a process, it's the indicators."
The brain has the property of independent systematization of information, and an experienced trader's TS may intuitively possess this property, even if he did not set himself such a goal. But an intuitive result and a result based on systematic knowledge are two different results with different efforts.
There is no doubt. But we are talking about those who are accountable for their actions. We are talking about formalizable tasks. And those who are capable of it.
>> (I have an acquaintance who plays exclusively on intuition. True, at the stock exchange. Quite and very successfully, as a rule. I am so not able to. But a couple of times in the 6 years that we know each other, he was a VERY big drain. But that's offtopic).