LET'S SAY THAT ... - page 3

New comment
 
Richie писал(а)>>

Once again, we are talking about price increments.

We are talking about the same thing.

And can you prove that it is not accidental? Where are the facts?

http://ru.arxiv.org/ http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
You will find the answers to your question if you take your search seriously.
 
MoneyJinn писал(а) >>
We simply wait for the price to exhibit one stable, recurring feature and then start trying to exploit that feature (read pattern).
As soon as the pattern dies, we start looking for the next one and so on until we get bored.



True, but not on a random rambling basis.
 
A phrase caught my eye in a philosopher (Mamardashvili). In my opinion, it goes to the heart of the search for what is happening in the market and what to do about it:
"If one sets off from a point where knowledge does not help, one goes in the direction of meaning."
 

will Medvedi, "walk" within his average range in n- days ?

 
sever29 писал(а) >>

will Medvedi, "walk" within his average range in n- days ?

Nobody knows that.

 
Richie >>:

И тут возникают вопросы:
- Как им торговать?
- Что в этом случае будет, а что не будет работать?
Каковы будут ваши предожения?

My suggestion: open a Dealing Centre and provide services to traders. For spreads and commissions. It would work.
;)
 
MetaDriver писал(а) >>
My suggestion: open a Dealing Centre and provide services to traders. For spreads and commissions. It will work.
;)


Becoming a market maker on bearish is not a bad option either :D
 
lea >>:



Верно, но не на случайном блуждании.

And that in randomly wandering, the price cannot have any stable properties?

 
lea >>:

Стать маркетмейкером на медведии - тоже неплохой вариант :D

Here are two working options already.

:)

 
There is another option. It was touched upon in Lovin (see baltik's last post on the page). Laboucher's MM is not as aggressive as classic martin. Those expounding this MM method usually say that only 33% of profitable trades with a take equal to a stop are enough to spin around zero.
But you still have to put up with substantial drawdowns and the possibility of a stop-out.
The link is Laboucher's MM.
This MM is far from as obvious as the classic martin, as the law of lot growth in a losing series is also unclear. I've listened to the webinar about this MM and supposedly the presenter's experience confirms that with an initial lot 1 the maximal lot is 60. I do not really believe in it, we need field experiments.
P.S. It seems it is time to start a branch about the Third Sacred Cow ("A TS with a negative mathematical expectation (at 0.1) cannot be transformed into a profitable one").
12345678910...44
New comment