Trading probability - page 9
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
In general, to understand what probability is, you have to imagine that this is how the snow makes such "slides" because of the wind, here is the "distribution" and non-uniformity - probability theory is "in essence" - "statistics in time".
A profound misconception. Back in the early 900s Lenin wrote a very good book called "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" . No one has refuted it. But behavioural economics is in full bloom.
You and I have too different views on economics and its relationship to real price behaviour. Therefore I think it is pointless to argue further on this point.I haven't read Lenin and I don't think reading him is necessary.
Вообще чтобы понять что такое вероятность - надо представить себе - вот как снег наметает такие "горки" из - за ветра, вот тут и "распределение" и не равномерность - теория вероятности это "по сути своей" - "статистика во времени".
Golden words, but the main sticking point of my logic is the ratio of the curvature of the time interval. As the calculated derivative of the second cycle duration, from the results (statistics) of the first cycle. Move the axis of the second cycle, in the direction of negative positions, and they will cross it again in a 50/50 ratio. And part of the positions from the first cycle already holds (+), which brings the total to the balance profit.
It's no secret on this forum that an accurate prediction is unlikely (although I won't be so categorical),
hence the problem statement or rather the previously set problem time_open|direction|close time
turns into opening time|direction|(set TP and SL).
Now the essence of the question: what is better: a small_stop loss|big_stopprofit or small_stopprofit|big_stop loss ?
Theoretically the smaller the removal the smaller the loss or profit (by variations),
but the further away the level is, the less likely it will be to be reachable by cumulative.
I don't think this is the right problem to solve. Either we have a probability of movement direction, then we simply hold a position in the most probable direction, we obtain a reversal system that does not need stops (stops in case of force majeure). Or, we estimate the probability of the deal with some TP and SL, we can with different variants of TP/SL, and trade the deal with the highest probability of a favorable outcome.
But this is just for the record, just passing by....)
Как по мне вообще не "та" постановка задачи. Либо мы имеем вероятность направления движения, тогда просто держим позицию в наиболее вероятном направлении, получаем переворотную систему которой и стопы ни к чему (стопы на случай форсмажоров). Либо, мы оцениваем вероятность сделки с некоторыми ТП и СЛ, можно с различными вариантами ТП/СЛ, и торгуем сделку имеющую наибольшую вероятность благоприятного исхода.
Но это так к слову, мимо пробегал....)
Just right, development of directional probability is the second part, at first statistically reliable exit from position is needed.Although it may look like a cart before the horse, but the pride of UkrAvtoProm "Zaz-968" is the proof that the scheme is viable :o)
Как по мне вообще не "та" постановка задачи. Либо мы имеем вероятность направления движения, тогда просто держим позицию в наиболее вероятном направлении, получаем переворотную систему которой и стопы ни к чему (стопы на случай форсмажоров). Либо, мы оцениваем вероятность сделки с некоторыми ТП и СЛ, можно с различными вариантами ТП/СЛ, и торгуем сделку имеющую наибольшую вероятность благоприятного исхода.
Но это так к слову, мимо пробегал....)
I can't understand why this measuring of the range of price movements in stops or profits?
From the beginning I wrote that the greater the number of instruments involved, the stronger the trend of averaging. I went this way because it is impossible to obtain catastrophic deviations. The use of stops or profits does not play on your side, but on the DC's.
I personally ( once again ) like Getch's approaches ( vision ) to the solution, he's in that thread, remember when everybody started laughing again ( strange behaviour ) so he suggested we extend the problem further - if we have uniform distribution on time of opening and sell/buy type we get a "pattern" like thisregularity" ( dimensions => determine probability), but if we change ( in YOU ( and me ) THIS IS WHAT WE DO ) this distribution, let's say just a type to begin with, let SELL falls more often than BUY, let it be P_Sell = 0.65 and P_Buy = 1 - P_Sell, then naturally, intuitively it is clear that this rule should stop working. But will it - will it stop working? That is the question, and the answer is in fact very important - because it allows us to understand if our efforts will make sense or not.
*** Oh... I personally don't know the answer to that. Or I think that I don't know - maybe, but that's how it is sometimes - behind the wording it starts to seem that there's something complicated, but it turns out - that you just have to do the simli-fy. :))
I can't figure out why it's measuring the range of price movements in stops or profits?
are exits, an element of TA - price levels after which the statistical advantage no longer satisfies us. The TA operate only with events in the price-time-volume space and the entry/exit is defined in these dimensions. Exit by TP and SL uses only one dimension - price, it's just more convenient and historically and has been supported by brokers for a long time.