What makes an unsteady graph unsteady or why oil is oil? - page 10

 

Urain писал(а) >>

Believe me, there are such miracles when you look for certain properties with purpose and not by chance.

Well, miracles never happen, as you know. :)) And the fact that it does not work on the demo, which means that somewhere there is a conceptual error, which appears in the form of a positive profit in the tester.
 
Integer >>:
Откройте любой учебник по психологии и прочитайте определение психологии "Наука о душе..." черненьгеми бугвачгами на беленьгой бумахе.

Well, the whole question is what does this textbook mean by the concept of the soul.

A "soul" - a thing that the official science has not yet been recognized and, therefore, according to the same logic, psychology can not be considered part of academic science, which is in fact quackery roughly speaking because you can not sit with one ass on two chairs. :)

 
Andrei01 >>:
Ну дык чудес не бывает как известно. :)) Да и факт што это не работает на демо, а значит где-то есть концептуальная ошибка которая проявляется ввиде положительно профита в тестере.


Urain

И эта концептуальная особенность и есть эксплуатация простой функции построения тиков в тестере

(хотя специально строить именно тестерный грааль не стремился).

 

Urain писал(а) >>

And this conceptual feature is the exploitation of a simple tick-building function in the tester

(although it was not specifically intended to build a tester grail).

Well, then what is the problem with feeding real quotes to the tester? Technically it is not so difficult, although it is a pain. But there is a grail for the rest of the year. :))

 
Andrei01 писал(а) >>

Well, the question is, what does this textbook mean by soul?

The "soul" is a thing that has not yet been recognised by official science and therefore, according to the same logic, psychology cannot be considered part of academic science, which is in fact quackery, to put it crudely because you cannot sit with one ass on two chairs. :)

What sect are you from?

 
Andrei01 wrote >>

So what's the problem with feeding the tester real quotes? Technically, it's not that hard, but it's a hassle. But there is a grail for the rest of the year. :))


The trouble is that the graph takes a simple function of tester ticks (because you can't deny that ticks in the tester are modeled by a certain formula),

but the complex function of real ticks it can't cope with.

 
Integer >>:

Вы из какой секты?

From a cult of realists. What about you?
 
Integer wrote: (a) >>

Which sect are you from?

Dima change your avatar to [don't touch me I'm sleepy] :o), soul soul what are we talking about?

 
Urain >>:


Морока в том что грааль хавает простую функцию тестерных тиков (ведь вы не будуте отрицать что тики в тестере моделируються по определённой формуле),

а вот сложная функция реальных тиков ему не позубам.

Well, why can't you take a complex function and turn it into a simple one to make it work? Maybe the grail won't notice the switch?
 
Andrei01 wrote(a) >>


Well, why can't you take a complex function and turn it into a simple one to make it work? Maybe the grail won't notice the switch?

Did you watch the bar build in the tester?

If the xlos is smaller than the open and the bar is bearish, then the ticks go first to the maximum, then to the minimum and then to the xlos (i.e. ticks at M1),

The difference is that the ticks go first to the high, then to the low and then to the klos (i.e. M1 ticks).

But the Expert Advisor accidentally detected this pattern of ticks in the tester.

Reason: