Obtaining a stationary BP from a price BP - page 31
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
A model can be called many things and the object of prediction can be different. It is about the local predictability of the market in the sense of preserving some of its parameters for a while.
It once again confirms that the price is a SB. If we do a unit root test, yes, but it's true. Local dependence is not a local dependence, it is a property of the SB - there is no contradiction here. Price cannot run without looking back in one direction, if it is so, it is no SB and ACF will be positive and any fantasy will work based on the fact that if the movement started, then it will continue.The most important thing to pay attention to is dispersion/time relation, the current volatility, and the distribution of the first difference series, for example on the daily chart may be NR, on the minute charts known to many thick tails.
P.S. All my wishes about "to think up" etc. - >> it's not for you personally.
??? Are you out of your mind? What am I, an artist? The indicator draws. Its logic is described on page 25.
What kind of logic is there in this fludilla about detected peaks in a long context with quasi-stationarity, only pictures are left to check the lousiness of the super idea, which can be described in less eloquent words.
"It's not my fault - he drew it himself"!
What does trading have to do with it?
Firstly, money or stocks consist of individual notes and are not continuously poured like water, so the transition of money from hand to hand is always DISCRETE. There are NO "harmonics" or "harmonics" in the transition of money. Your definition is ridiculous - it's like defining exactly how chocolate cakes orbit Jupiter.
It's a definition from the "it rained and two students" series (all the other "definitions" from electrical engineering are there too).
I am like a wounded lynx kicking and pacing and have been trying for months now to force the members of this forum to DO THE THING - namely to continue discussing "pricing in the foreign exchange market". And they can't even ask intelligent questions there.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/115856
:D
You'd better get down to business - a deeper study of electrical engineering - it will be much more productive!
What kind of logic is there in this thread about detected peaks in long-run context with quasi-stationarity, it's just a matter of checking the super idea, which can be described in less eloquent words.
You're a fool. I'm already regretting posting a working example. I have nothing better to do than prove and justify myself.
Go your ... your way, "stable and reliable".
===
Noticed it a long time ago. A lot of people here are not interested in business, not in discussion, but in self-satisfaction of their fucking complexes.
Noticed it a long time ago. A lot of people here are not interested in business, not in discussion, but in self-satisfaction of their fucking complexes.
Come on, don't worry about it, they're pissing on Nobel Prizes, saying it's bullshit and worthless.
...
Noticed it a long time ago. A lot of people here are not interested in business, not in discussion, but in self-satisfaction of their fucking complexes.
You know, some evil tongues say that Freud only became famous when he told the world the "content" of his subconscious. :о) It seems to me, that your colleagues, who have become your spiteful opponents, just wanted to know more and to understand, whether they understood correctly what you wrote about on page 25. I, for example, understood everything, as it seems to me, but the only thing I didn't see any regularities, but notice - I don't deny their existence. I need to be patient and I will definitely find them in your pictures.
Come on, don't worry about it, people are pissed off about Nobel Prizes, they say it's shit and it's worthless.
))) I'm not worried. >>))) I'm not worried about it.
And you know, some malicious tongues say, that Freud became famous only when he narrated to the world the "content" of his subconsciousness. :о) It seems to me, that your colleagues, who have become your spiteful opponents, just wanted to know more and to understand, whether they understood correctly what you've written about on page 25. I, for example, understood everything, as it seems to me, but the only thing I haven't seen any regularities, but notice - I don't deny their existence. I have to be patient and I will definitely find them in your pictures.
As far as I understand, it is not a question of patterns, but of identifying a model. Besides, the author has left a lot behind, as he himself writes about.
As far as I understand, it is not a question of patterns, but of identifying a model.
And where is any characteristic by which to judge the quality of identification?
Also, the author has left a lot of things off the horizon, as he himself writes about.
>> we all keep missing something ....
And you know, some evil tongues claim that Freud only became famous when he told the world the 'content' of his subconscious. :о) It seems to me, that your colleagues, who have become your spiteful opponents, just wanted to know more and to understand, whether they understood what you wrote on page 25 correctly. I, for example, understood everything, as it seems to me, but the only thing I didn't see any regularities, but notice - I don't deny their existence. I need to be patient and I will definitely find them in your pictures.
Seryozh! What patterns do you keep talking about? What don't you see there? (I don't see it either, I don't pretend to...))