To follow up - page 5
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
These are the signals. And it is by these signals that Shepherd "entered" and "exited". More precisely, he "flipped out". For this was the strategy he was looking at. If I remember correctly :) .
Not entering or exiting, but investigating the statistics of the zigzag. That's why he came to H-volatility, as a parameter similar to Hearst, and its value 2 (i.e. 1/2 in your interpretation) for a random process.
Since the algorithm for drawing kagi and Renko is formal, it contains no information about the nature of the price process and therefore no regularities of this process, the result is clear - it is impossible to make money on such "signals". However, it is possible to use H-volatility to determine the nature of the market and, if it is not a SB, to play a trend or counter-trend strategy. But the profit from such strategies will also be "statistical" at best.
So, in fact, it is not the zigzag that provides the signal (and even more so, not the algorithm for its construction), but the knowledge of MO for its segment. I agree, if for some SP we have nonzero MO (no matter it is increment of price, or of a zigzag built on it, or some other derivative of SP price), then we can make money on it without Zigzag and without Pastuhov.
Yuri, you got your way, I once again ran through Pastukhov's thesis superficially. :)
On the question of "in" or "out" on page 63 there is a lovely picture. 63 there's a lovely picture
Does it take a super imagination to recognize in these arrows the very "signals" of that particular zigzag? Moreover, I know for a fact that you have made such zigzag.
As for the regularities: it is not a construction algorithm, but properties of a particular instrument. It is like any other indicator: the formula is the same, but the values are different for different processes. In the general case, of course.
In fact, we seem to be going off-topic in this thread. To save the day, I propose that you consider MO (which, as you correctly pointed out, we so need to know) to be a function of context :)Agree, if we have a non-zero MO for some SP (it doesn't matter the increment of this price, or a zigzag built on it, or some other derivative of SP price), then we can make money on it without a zigzag and without Pastukhov.
At the moment of shift of a zigzag, we have a non-zero MO - the price will pass in this direction as much (or nearly exactly) as it has already passed. But, alas, it is impossible to earn on it. According to Pastukhov.
any algorithm underlying the zigzag mark-up is an oscillator, or may be so represented
To me, however, a zigzag seems to be a more general concept. The zigzag algorithms can be very whimsical, so the task of matching an oscillator can be very, very non-trivial.
Another good thing about the zigzag is that it goes exactly by price. After all, our pleasantness and unpleasantness are determined not by the oscillator's values, but by the price.
Aha, colleagues, are we martingale again?
No, we're discussing context here, join in, the host doesn't seem to mind :)
Trying to figure out what the proverbial context is. According to Peter, it is the direction of the current (unfinished) ray on a larger TF. Right? Or is context a "flat/trend" according to Slava?
The second. Marquis de Lopital, according to your hypothesis,
Вот как раз эта "теорема" и говорит что "прямо" и "в наоборот" совершенно в равной степени зависят от контекста, имхо
since everything is so hopelessly monopenic, it turns out you don't need to determine the context either. Or are you just going to test it?
On the question of "in" or "out" on page 63 there is a lovely picture. 63 there is a lovely picture
...
In fact, we seem to have gone off-topic in this thread. To save the situation, I propose that you consider MO (which, as you correctly pointed out, we so need to know) to be a function of context :)
Have you looked at the previous 63 pages ? And did I say he didn't discuss trading strategies at all ?
But you're certainly right and it's an offtopic, we need to end it. Especially since it's dangerous to argue with you. :-)
Here we have a non-zero MO at the moment of cagy-zigzag switch - the price will on average travel in this direction for exactly (or almost exactly) as long as it has already travelled. But, alas, it is impossible to earn on it. According to Pastukhov.
METHODS IN TECHNICAL ANALYSIS", but that's not it.