Classical analysis 'doesn't work'? - page 3
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
Helen, this picture proves nothing: one deal provided the lion's share of the profits.
Nevertheless, I don't doubt once that you, you are the one who can make anything work.
Much has been broken on the subject of the "classics'" ability to work. So let them argue, who's stopping them?
Alligator and others from Grandpa Bill? Well no, they are not classics, although their consecration to his name seems to make them classics.
No, no, Alexei, the account is not mine. Trader's trainee account. The spike on the chart is an investment. I apologize for not specifying right away.
Initial deposited 4950.0, invested on 18.01.10 - 138,600.0. Profit as of now 39,498.80. I worked with very small lots, only now moved to 0.05, maximal number of common positions was 0.2 (referring to the question about depo workload). The drawdowns are in the minuscule.
It's not about the profitability of the account. The matter is that the only methods of the so-called "classical" analysis are used, and their use brings profit without any stress on the deposit and without killing the last nerve of the investor. By the way, if a trainee were allowed to work with a normal lot, well, at least 0.5, the profitability would be...
Arguments, yes... However, the dispute often revolves around, as you correctly noted, "Alika" and the like, of the ancient one. But are they classics of analysis? Just an "indicator classic", one of the outdated turkeys... by the way, even it comes in handy with certain settings.
The market phenomena of overbought, oversold and underbought are still alive. And they will always be present. RSI with OsMA catch them very well. Therefore, "classic indicators" are working and are not going to get tired, as they show the phenomenon in the market.
From the chart figures at work on the account we paid attention to channels and their confirmed breakdown, triangles with confirmation of an exit, and of course we considered the exit beyond the trend lines. Again the classics.
Helen, I have a couple of questions:
1. is this trainee yours? If yes, then it is again your experience passed on to him.
2. is this system formalisable? Knowing your scepticism about robots, I doubt it. Surely there are some points that, if formalised, are extremely difficult and with unpredictable results.
Many of those who say that "classics" don't work are referring specifically to robots.
To be honest, I myself have serious doubts about the possibility of building a robot (specifically a robot, not a semi-automaton) based only on "classics". I am focused exactly on the robot, but "classic" has long disappeared from my repertoire of inducators. Not that they have disappeared altogether (I haven't forgotten what a mashka is), and they can also be attached as explanatory ones - but they are not the ideological core of the system.
I believe that the "classics" indictors can give signals, but they alone do not give a statistical advantage. You need a confirming context - just what is hard to formalize and is the real know-how of a successful trader.
Helen, I have a couple of questions:
1. is this trainee yours? If yes, then again it is your experience passed on to him.
2. is this system formalisable? Knowing your scepticism about robots, I doubt it. Surely there are some points that, if formalised, are extremely difficult and with unpredictable results.
Many of those who say that "classics" don't work are referring specifically to robots.
To be honest, I myself have serious doubts about the possibility of building a robot (specifically a robot, not a semi-automatic machine) based only on "classics". I am focused exactly on the robot, but "classic" has long disappeared from my repertoire of inducators. Not that they have disappeared altogether (I haven't forgotten what a mashka is), and they can also be attached as explanatory ones - but they are not the ideological core of the system.
I believe that the "classics" indictors can give signals, but they alone do not give a statistical advantage. You need a confirming context - this is what is formalized with difficulty and this is the real know-how of a successful trader.
1. Mine. But not everything is simply explained by a simple transfer of experience. The man has more than a year's experience of trading as a bank trader. His approach. Passing it on, I guess... - to point 2.
2. The system, or better said - trading strategy, is not formalizable in principle - too many factors affecting the movement of pairs outside charts (if charting factors can affect anything at all :) ). Trading systems for robots are formalized only on the basis of charts and are based only on the trading methods available (inside the chart). As for the trader, he has much more trading methods, including those based on charts, and they are not difficult to formalize. And they are... To the point 1.
Are there any advantages over custom indulators within the set of trading methods called TS? Perhaps they do not. But maybe the TS is biased in the wrong direction? After all practically any custom indicator is based on МА, РСИ etc. + graphical tools (I wanted to add temporary patterns but they are displaced).
2. Система, или лучше сказать - стратегия торговли, не формализуема в принципе - слишком много факторов, влияющих на движение пар вне графиков (если факторы рисования графиков вообще на что-то могут влиять :) ). Системы торговли для роботов формализуются исходя только из графиков и лепятся только из доступных (внутри графика) торговых приёмов. У трейдера же торговых приёмов, в том числе на базе графиков, на порядок больше и формализуются они не сложно.
Lena, I highlighted in blue. Explain, please. It seems to me to be a contradiction.
No contradiction at all. I'll redo it slightly. -
- "...trade strategy is not formalizable in principle ."
- "...trading techniques are not difficult to formalize."
Two big differences in the highlighted large.
не формализуема в принципе"
Well, this is basically what Alexei is saying: - Many of those who say that "classics" don't work are referring specifically to robots.
But in your context, one could say, to paraphrase the proverb: a stick is an indicator in the right hands :-)
- "...trading strategy is not formalisable in principle "
Now here's where the blather comes in.....
If the strategy can't be formalized, then you don't have a strategy. Or maybe you do have a strategy, but it's very complicated.
Совсем нет противоречий. Слегка переделаю. -
- "...стратегия торговли не формализуема в принципе"
- "...торговые приёмы формализировать не сложно."
Две большие разницы в выделенном крупно.
A friend of mine (P) once said to me:
P: Why do you use theanalysis? It's rubbish, you can't build a strategy on it.
I: Why is it impossible?
P: Think about it, does the fact that the price was rising yesterday mean that it will rise today?
I remember it took me a long time to get over the shock .....
Если стартегию нельзя формализировать, то у вас стратегии нет.
No, Itso, I'm not that categorical. Well, for example, divergence. There are many ways to formalize it, but we don't see any decent ones, i.e. allowing to work with profit. But there are people who successfully work with divergence.
Or a more complicated example: decisions are made taking into account the news. News is information whose processing is not at all easy to formalise. Although it is said that in large organisations it is also formalised.
Here's where the flubber starts....
Many great truths were blasphemy at first.