To follow up - page 8
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 understand TA as any manipulation of the history of quotes with the aim of predicting their behaviour in the future to a greater or lesser degree of detail.
Are we really going to have to use the term 'TA' in this discussion? :)
Hi Lena. It's moving, but so far only at the level of the indicator.
That is, I define TA by the subject of the analysis - the CD. More precisely, the subject of analysis is the content of the quote stream, where in addition to the price itself, there may be volume, open interest, tiers of the cup.
I think that this is the most correct way of looking at it. In reality there are only two types of market analysis - TA and FA, and they differ in the type of data which is analysed; the analysis of prices, volumes and other quote flow data (or transactions) is TA. And what methods are used to do it is a matter of tenths. Which is consistent with the definition given on this website.
In this sense, Pastukhov's definition is not quite correct, because it narrows the analysis to a statistical one.
And forecasting can be safely thrown out of the definition and replaced with the real purpose of a trader - to make a profit.
I understand under TA any manipulations with the history of quotes, which have the purpose to predict their behavior in the future with this or that degree of detail.
The key word here is 'behaviour'. It does not imply unambiguously and only "price forecasts". In general, the idea of basing TA solely on price forecasts strikes me as ruinous.
Well, here is the simplest case. You may determine for yourself that I will close the position at such and such price, or you may close the position by looking not at the price but at the indices that describe some market condition. Exit is not based on the target, but on the phase change within the context. Or simply by the very expiry of that context.
Are we really going to have to use the term "TA" in this discussion? :)
Unfortunately...)) Although, as we are not going to talk about anything else (if by indices and analysis), we may not use it. It will be redundant. OK.
I brought up the terminology as there were already m-m-m-m, shall we say, misunderstandings. )))
Still, as it turned out, in real time zero beam is redrawn incorrectly.
Corrected.
===
I was sure of that, but no, errors crept up))).
I'm a bit of a one-tasker after all. I can't seem to shake off that zig-zagging turkey, sewer dreams, man. (Sausages, apparently, have taken a toll not only on digestion but also on the higher nervous system.)
Right now, the trend (ShowTrend>0) is determined by breaking through the appropriate channel boundary + indentation (optional, if Border!=0). The channel boundary can in turn be smoothed (ChannelMA>1). This is the end of the current implementation of trend detection. Besides, the breakdown price type can be selected: High/Low (ShowTrend=1) or Close (ShowTrend=2). That is all.
The idea is this: tie the breakout levels to the Fibo. I like this idea mainly because I don't have to enter new parameter fields - I hate complicating the setting of properties, and binding seems to be easy - levels are counted anyway. I.e. we look at which Fibo level is closer to expansion, and it is taken as a breakout level. Fibo levels are suitable for both Fibo-correction and Fibo-expansion, I think. How to use other Fibo structures (channel, fan, zones, arcs) for this purpose I cannot yet comprehend. Besides, I do not believe in their practical utility, frankly speaking. I can still go here and there with expansion corrections (channel) - I can navigate on an intuitive level, but with the rest... Well, maybe I just don't have it. Yeah...
===
Ok. The idea has been expressed. Surely, it is not new (nothing can be new) and someone has either thought in this direction (I myself once thought long ago), or tried to use in practice. It is interesting to find out what has been thought of and in general... Maybe it is not worth getting involved with.
===
I understand that this approach will not replace the TS (hahaha - that would be strange))), but I want to squeeze everything that resembles rationality out of the indicator. And forget it like a hangover nightmare. I'm sick of it.
I realise that this approach is no substitute for TC (gaga - that would be weird)))
And my dream is exactly that: one turkey - full analytical part of the TS (i.e. no volumes).
And my dream is exactly this: one turkey - full analytical part of the TS (i.e. without volumes).
You know, this is another topic that could be discussed. Namely: the balance of logic between the indicator and the Expert Advisor. There's a counter for each bowl of the scale.
For me, development of the functionality of indicators finally resulted in the fact that it was easier to build a trading simulator than to write an Expert Advisor for it :) . That is, if I wanted to trade, a trivial Expert Advisor would have been enough, and all the strings would have led to the indicator. But it did not come to trade :)
For me, development of the functionality of indicators finally resulted in the fact that it was easier to build a trading simulator than to write an Expert Advisor for it :) . That is, if I wanted to trade, a trivial Expert Advisor would have been enough, and all the strings would have led to the indicator. But it did not come to trade :)
))) Similarly. For some reason my indicator always becomes a graphical Expert Advisor without any trade. I usually write trade signals on one buffer - int with a range from needs and decode this buffer in Expert Advisor (the real one!)).
===
By the way, that's why I got so upset when in 5 they decided to remove the graphics in the indices. You know, I'm used to honing all my logic in an indicator.