Why is the normal distribution not normal? - page 21
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 will try to make my views on the subject very clear.
1. For a person, his/her income per unit of time is important (meaningful).
It is this parameter which defines the standard of living and social status. The option of spending already accumulated capital comes down to the sounded option.
2. A natural functional to optimize any source of income for a person is his/her profitability per unit of time (rub/month).
If these two points are not contradictory and sensible, then for arbitrary TS the global optimization parameter is the abovementioned functional.
Our dispute with you, getch, is based on an understatement as for what is important for a person from the point of view of well-being. I think it is possible that our values may turn out to be different. It is clear that in this case the optimization functions should not coincide either.
In general, it turns out to be a philosophical topic. Really, if to compare people engaged in different fields of activity by the parameter of an optimized functional it will be different for figures of art, science and business by definition. Probably, it is silly from this point of view to argue who is better or smarter - fields do not overlap and cannot be compared.
That's how it is.
Let's not reduce the discussion to philosophy. Just the question is very clear and amenable to formalisation.
Assertions:
Give any counter-example.
Let's not reduce the discussion to philosophy. Just the question is very clear and can be formalised.
Assertions:
What if the system is based on time as others are guided by it? >> Maybe wrong, maybe tradition, maybe working conditions/schedules.
Prices are independent of your traditions and working conditions/schedules.
To reiterate the point, when analysing a (n) price series, n should not be time-bound.
About trading sessions (European, Asian, etc.).
Trading sessions are not determined by time, but by trading volumes.
If you do not have data on trading volumes, then you can roughly indicate the rise and fall of trading volume by certain hours of the day. But national holidays in this approach will be taken into account very crudely. The same is true for scheduled, as well as force majeure news.
Market time is a measure of volume change. It is not human time at all. Therefore, a(n) is the value of price through equal accumulated values of trading volume.
If there is no volume data, then more crudely a(n) is the price value at local extrema with the condition that their location is not less than a certain value N.
getch, there is no point in arguing and figuring out what is right!
For me it's the points per month that matter.
For you, it's points per transaction.
We don't overlap. You can, of course, argue about what is better... You're welcome - I have made my arguments very clear above.
I didn't bring the timeline graph because I use it, but because it's what we're talking about.
But I understand that the optimums for "points per transaction" and "points per unit time" are not the same.
And I also know that the "pips per unit time" function is the determinant for the optimization of the TS in terms of the finiteness of human life.
Understand that in all aspects of human activity, including work in the markets, there is a natural time scale - the average length of human life, and there is no sense to construct a tricky reasoning without reference to this parameter.