Avalanche - page 386
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
Can I ask the "terrorists" or "Lovina" practitioners some more questions?
To prove the possible effectiveness of this trading method it is important to know how the channel width of pending orders is determined...
What algorithm is used, or just by eye - by results of optimization on history?
;)
I will risk to try it within the framework of geometrical wandering.
Can I ask the "terrorists" or "Lovina" practitioners some more questions?
To prove the possible effectiveness of this trading method it is important to know how the channel width of pending orders is determined...
What algorithm is used, or just by eye - by results of optimization on history?
;)
I will risk trying to do it in terms of geometrical roaming.
I think that ideally, the channel width should not be of much importance.
I don't think that ideally, the width of the channel shouldn't play much of a role.
I don't... ;)
But I think the interest in "catching" is heightened also because if it is proven to be a "plughole" ;) -
another strategy will be proven to be profitable, namely:
"We set counter orders and wait!"
;)
I'm not... ;)
But I think there's a lot of interest in "catching" also because if it's proven to be a "slugger" ;) -
another strategy will be proven to be profitable:
"Let's put out counter warrants and wait!"
;)
It's been proven a thousand times already, and in this thread too, ignored by you by the way
All the trains are long gone and the rails are dismantled and the overhead system is dismantled, but you are still standing on the platform at the ticket office together with the lavnchiki, even if you are going in the opposite direction
Sorry.... for once again taking the liberty of intervening in your controversy....
It's been about 1.5 months since my last visit to this thread, God bless my memory....
And nothing has changed.....
You are still trying to decide "who is right and who is wrong ...?
Does it work or doesn't it work??? "
My friends, ALL WORKS, but unfortunately the minority of deepest readers of this rambling thread.
Just try with your own hands to write such an owl, and then see for yourself.
A thousand such advisors could have been made during this time :).
But our brother needs everything at once! Why waste time, and especially money, on something that you do not know if it works or not!
And time goes by...
And while you're here still solving this unfortunate issue, others are already busy chopping dough :)
Oh you ....
I'll just disappear... I'll watch you from the sidelines.... Hee hee hee ....
I join in. Unfortunately most do not see the obvious behind the veil of Fear of losing the entire deposit.....
The forum is a never-ending grind.......
It's all been proven a thousand times, and in this thread too, ignored by you by the way.
All the trains are long gone and the rails and overhead system dismantled, but you are still standing on the platform at the ticket office together with the trainmen, even if you're going in the opposite direction...
A quote.... or a link to the proof?
If you would be so kind.
;)
I believe that ideally, the width of the channel should not play a major role.
The narrower the channel, the more "knees", the faster the MC will come, but the profit before the MC in the same area, provided the MC does not come (with the same coefficients of "increasing" lots because of the larger number of "triggered chains") is larger. At the limit - at each tick a new order is opened. On the 14th (according to one of the last posts) tick - MC. :)
The wider the channel, the smaller the number of "knees", and the lower the profit (in the same area - between the MCs of the previous variant). In the limit ... no order at all, no "knees" and the minimum profit is 0.
Tried doing the channel width as a function of StdDev, ATR - I got !!! (keyword) there was no fundamental improvement (I did a version "without MC", i.e. variant 2, including "limit").
Tried to use the result of NS on predicting "volatility change" (this phrase does not mean that the NS got it !!!), but tedious and ... lazy.
It's a fixed channel at the moment.
A quote.... or a link to the proof, please?
If you would be so kind.
;)
A quote.... or a link to the proof, please?
If you would be so kind.
;)