To follow up - page 35
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
No. The relationship is fine. It's just that the worm is mushrooming - maybe they're in the wrong 'steppe'. :)
And apparently I'm not the only one.
And it's interesting to know the results that allow one to assert
1404
no luck (I tried it myself)
There are a bunch of patterns of different time duration + randomness and every single perfect entry point may have a cause in one or more patterns muddied by randomness. As a result of highlighting the context we only get a fit to this random mix, rather than highlighting individual patterns and their context of use. Every pattern has its own context. imho
Just because it didn't work for me practically doesn't mean that's why it's a no-brainer. It's quite different. And I explained why and put "imho". I can explain in simpler words, on my fingers, but then it would be abstract. But in general, of course, it's better not to trust anyone and go through paths that came to your aid. On the way you may find something you would not have found otherwise.
Нет. отношения нормальны е. Просто червь гризёт - может они не в ту "степь". :)
Imho, it's not a TC. I mean, you can't make a TC out of it. But I could be wrong. You have, as I understand it, a context filter input and a perfect output. Try to find that perfect output in real life.
P.S. I think that after the entry you will get exactly this situation
So the Maitres are just as 'ideal' to actually enter.
But on the branch, not in the market. ;)
If you mean me, how do you know how I do or don't enter the market? ;)
Имхо, это не ТС. В смысле из этого не сделать ТС. Но я могу ошибаться. У вас, как я понял, вход по фильтру контекста и идеальный выход. Попробуйте найти этот идеальный выход в реале.
Let's get the CC sorted out. Otherwise too many new entities will ruin him.
Or is it all clear with him?
Not for me.
And you're already looking for CU.
"Hasty" it is ;)
Если вы это про меня, то откуда вы знаете как я вхожу или не вхожу в рынок? ;)
Please forgive me generously. Off topic.
Glad you have self-identified.
But I'm still waiting to hear about the same categorical conclusions.
--
Fingers are fine, too. Causal reasoning is what counts.
Давайте с КК разберемся. А то слишком много новых сущностей его погубят.
Или с ним всё ясно?
Мне нет.
А Вам уже ТС подавай.
"Торопыжно" это ;)
There you go, you are confused as well :)
I'm proving here that TC is the right place to start :). All other suggestions go to other figures :)
More seriously, I'll tell you the same thing as Alexey did.
You have a very cursory style of presentation
.You have to spell it out at least a little bit, because not all clever people understand each other at once :)
I'm a total zero in CC :).
By the way, I added a postscript to the previous post.
Did Alexei call "Calculate parameters, draw charts with graphs" a new paradigm? It seemed to me that he meant something completely different.
Certainly Alexey didn't say that. It was you who said such a thing. When reading my posts, read quotes (including from you) to understand what the words "this, that, that" refer to, etc. In particular, in this particular case, my phrase was preceded by your statement
A lot of people calculate parameters and draw diagrams with charts, also in Forex. So this "methodology" is neither new nor "different". But I will argue more :)
So I had to say that it (what is written in your quote above) is not a methodology at all. And what Alexei meant I spelled out explicitly in the very next sentence. I am sure that you have read it. So I don't understand why you need these linguistic tricks with misunderstanding.
Yuri, so you don't get confused about the motives, I'll explain right away that I reacted to this logical connection
All that was done without using the definition of FP and may well have been and described without the involvement of this concept. I/O systems abound, above in this post is another ... er ... discussed :) . Parameterization of FP is all people do, just not everyone realizes it :). But you stubbornly ignore the essential points, imho. And I'm not going to argue, what I would like to explain to you, you've written yourself: "But even and FP is not something new". Only "even and" is not clear why in this phrase. :)
I consider the correct (i.e. in accordance with its definition and functions) use of FP a methodologically correct approach. And you don't ?
I do not consider it to be the only correct approach. And I haven't asserted such nonsense anywhere. What makes you so ... um... you insist that you don't use FP or its definition and you don't want to hear about it? Because of allergies? Well, it's a medical problem, not a forum problem.
If you want to explain to me what I write, you probably know what I think better than I do? Then I wonder why you are so often wrong about the meaning of what I write, about what I mean, etc.
And finally, the only meaningful place in your message - about essences - is unfortunately also negative. Nevertheless, please indicate which points of substance I am stubbornly ignoring. If you don't mind - in a clear, unambiguous manner, without euphemisms and distant literary imagery.
Please forgive me generously. Off topic.
Glad you have self-identified.
But I'm still waiting to hear about the same categorical conclusions.
--
Fingers are fine, too. Causal reasoning matters.
I've lost the urge to "beads". Sorry :)
Ну вот, и вас запутали :)
God forbid. I didn't mean to.
And from the definition of context - supposedly correct, jump to TC?
It's not just to confuse, it's to mislead.
It went no further than talking about the need to define the parameters-coordinates of the FP.
So I suggest we go back and start developing the topic from there - what they can be,
how to measure, estimate them, etc.
---
there's no getting away from 33. The question of time is the same.
"Lebegian" or "Riemannian"? (c) Pastukhov
Что-то пропало желание "бисер метать". Сорри :)
Hint at the topstarter's nickname?
:о))))