Obtaining a stationary BP from a price BP - page 28
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
That's right, though. My posts were off-topic in the first place. I'm all for the flu and you haven't had the chicken pox yet. We'll talk later if we have to.
Lastly, a picture of the operation of that trend pattern for now - I have not changed anything (I can show for any period):
The trend is completed with a flip. How long the context will last - I don't know, and it doesn't matter.
===
I sincerely wish you good luck in your hard work. I would even say thankless. But who knows, maybe really - you will find something that for my feeble mind can not exist, and even if it exists, it can not be milked.
That's right, though. My posts were off-topic in the first place. I'm all for the flu and you haven't had the chicken pox yet. We'll talk later if we have to.
It's always like this, when you step back and it's "of all the deadbeats, I'm the deadbeat!!!" :o) You and Reshetov are a little bit alike, sometimes you are too rough and specific. But he is also understandable, it will take him two days to understand your picture.
If you're not mad at the whole world, then answer your question about "why it will not work. The answer is very simple - the chosen and voiced by you parameters are not related and do not define trends (remember your favorite definition of TA from the wiki, remember about the analysis and patterns). I dedicated a year and a half to a similar model (read below) (I found something interesting, but not where you show it). About trends and fluxes there is one good topic: https://forum.mql4.com/ru/11661, There was one more post of mine on this forum, where I told about the model, if I find it - I will download it..................................................nachen https://forum.mql4.com/ru/24013/page8.
But maybe I'm wrong and the main secret you will not give even for a jam jar :o)
Shit. Well you have to understand that these are different TC archetypes. Yours is trading according to a market model (as you imagine it), i.e. according to prediction. Mine is trading according to cognitive current context, which implies opening not where I predicted in the past, but according to FACT. Same for other position manipulations.
Not so long ago you wrote that TA is about forecasting, whoever thinks what about themselves. And you're right. So, in any case you choose a model (even the lack of a model is a model :o joke), otherwise there is no way. And all statements that I'm kind of in the market and you're bullshitting here are bullshit by definition!!!! Who type of "in the market", in it only because he chose a model that in his opinion will "keep it there", and no matter what kind of model (trivial MA/SMA crossings ..., simple channels, perverted channels, channels - x...., levels, etc..., I will not list everything). You take roughly the MA crossing as the basis (example chosen for artistic enhancement), ALSO, BLEEP - you have the entire market - THIS 2 MA (and MA can work, I mean conceptually, about the other).
The market model is what the trader uses (subconsciousness is not considered yet)
.
And you can piz%%%% as much as you like, but the model is chosen, you are "in the market" only because you have decided for yourself what the market is for you!!!! And don't bullshit me! I won't allow it! And the dignitaries who are bending their fingers here that we are in the market without any of your models and others on the side - let them bend further. :о)
PS: it seems you could have done with fewer words :o(
That's always like that, when you step aside and you're done, "I'm the shittiest of the shitties!!!" :o) You and Reshetov are a bit alike, you are sometimes rude and specific to the extreme. But he is also understandable, it will take him two days to understand your picture.
It seems that the variant of trend definition offered by me is lapidary as far as it goes. What's there to figure out?))) Then, it's just one definition out of many. Don't you and I know what they are worth!)))
If you're not mad at the whole world, then answer your question about "why it will not work. The answer is very simple - the chosen and voiced by you parameters are not related and do not define trends (remember your favorite definition of TA from the wiki, remember about the analysis and patterns).
I mean, how are they not related and not determinative? Those patterns are what I call a trend. Another bloody terminological massacre?))) Look, let's just put it on our fingers (God, my example is making me sick): are there extremes in the market? There are. Are they somehow positioned along the price axis - aha! And that's it. Next, either there is context or there isn't. We either go inside the channel and fix it outside, or we smoke on the sidelines.
(I'll put this trend definition on my deadlist - I'm sick of it!)))
In reality, it's not that simple. I've already mentioned context expiration - it's an output in terms of time and momentum/correction ratio. There are more... nuances.
===
Angry... Too strong a feeling. Yes, also at the whole world. So... frustrated. I'm telling you what I really got, and I'm like, "You're lying. Don't I have... have nothing better to do? You know, I advertise my complexes in other, nicer ways. Girls... drinks/snacks.))
I dedicated a year and a half to a similar model (read below) (I found something interesting, but not where you show it). There is one good topic about trends and flats: https://forum.mql4.com/ru/11661. There was one more post of mine in this forum, where I told about the model, if I find it - I will download it at https://forum.mql4.com/ru/24013/page8.
But maybe I'm wrong and the biggest secret you won't give up even for a jam jar :o)
What's the ... die Rote Armee secret! It's all out in the open.
Not so long ago you wrote that TA is about forecasting, no matter what anyone thinks about themselves. And you're right. So, in any case, you choose a model (even the lack of it is a model :o joke), otherwise there is no way. And all statements that I'm kind of in the market and you're bullshitting here are bullshit by definition!!!! Who type of "in the market", in it only because he chose a model that in his opinion will "keep it there", and no matter what kind of model (trivial MA/SMA crossings ..., simple channels, perverted channels, channels - x...., levels, etc..., I will not list everything). You take roughly the MA crossing as the basis (example chosen for artistic enhancement), ALSO, BLEEP - you have the entire market - THIS 2 MA (and MA can work, I mean conceptually, about the other).
The market model for a trader is what he uses (subconsciousness not yet considered)
And you can piz%%%% as much as you like, but the model is chosen, you are "in the market" only because you have decided for yourself what the market is for you!!!! And don't bullshit me! I won't allow it! And the figures who are bending their fingers here that we are in the market without any of your models and others on the side - let them bend further. :о)
PS: it seems you could have done with fewer words :o(
Bazinga!!!)) You know, I'm not even going to object - there's nothing to object to. You could have done without words - you could have put a dozen "!" and I would have understood. And agreed. It's so, about lapidarity. I mean brevity.
I'm a concrete guy - you can talk about the model in general, but I'm talking about the model, where profitable trading tactics are possible. You can look for anything and find it - but why, for the sake of academic interest? I mean your examples with mashkas.
You must not attribute to me what I do not claim! (All I need is just that: a carload of bread and a carload of caviar. And even if the bread is white and the caviar is black). I don't claim to be true to a deadline. I'm not fucking octogenarian, after all! )))
Yeah, well... Lapidarity is not our strong point.)))
===
Sergey, let me give a brief summary (and I don't care if it's offtop!!! I'm not the only one who's flooding here!))):
1. I only talk about how I trade myself. Quite a long time ago. But even earlier I decided for myself that it is possible to predict the market with sufficient reliability for profit, but it is more practical (profitable) to trade according to fact - context. From the market model that I don't know, only separate characteristics are used. The same stability of volatility is used by me, but as a general temprich on dumbness, because it is - predictable. Etc.
Achtung!!! - I'm only talking about my experience, skills and preferences!
2. Not VR at all, but only the sections corresponding to the right phase of a relatively stable process are considered. I'm already afraid to speak for stationarity.)))
3. a model is not a model. Only those that a) are unambiguous and b) allow for clear trading tactics with low risk and a sane MM are of interest.
I.e. the problem comes down to the adequacy of the detection of such a model. The model itself is invariant. It's not so much a simple problem, but it is reliably solvable.
===
That's all. It's not long before you go crazy. I am afraid to cross the fine line between "repeating" and "talking back".
... It is much harder to build a market model AT ALL than it is to give a partial definition for a trend or a flat. Nevertheless, the value of such a model (if it is adequate) exceeds the value of 1000 profitable TS based on private definitions. ....
+1000
:))) couldn't resist - I will also attach a picture of the exploitation of the trend model "for now"
:))) there is an entrance and an exit
The system produces the appropriate signals (and recommendations) - this is related to the decision making block of RDB.
But still BPR itself has an accepted model (out of a certain set of acceptable models) as the basis
I mean that there may be absolutely different models :)))
And on the subject of the branch: I personally do not see the need to separate the stationary BP from the price BP - while being aware that this is only my personal opinion :))
and then what?
If we're talking about interference, it can be effectively suppressed - without specifically isolating it.
Yurixx писал(а) >>
... Построить модель рынка ВООБЩЕ значительно труднее, чем дать частное определение для тренда или флета. Тем не менее ценность такой модели (если она адекватна) превосходит ценность 1000 профитных ТС, построенных на частных определениях. ....
avtomat wrote >>
+1000
How clever they are. Why is there no one from the forum going to the "pricing" thread? Or maybe everyone here has problems with the syntax of the Russian language?
and then what?
If we're talking about interference, it can be effectively suppressed - without specifically picking it out.
This is in electrical engineering. In trading, first try to define what a signal is and what a disturbance is, and then we can laugh at your definitions together.