We need a second head, or even two, like the Garrynych kite. - page 5
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
Here's an interesting thread about MAs http://forum.alpari.ru/thread52653.html
I do not really understand why the universality leads to complexity of adjustment. The universality just doesn't require it - everything is universal. Perhaps you meant that all the complexity goes to the level of programming the algorithm?
By universality I meant that the indicator should process as many different market situations as possible but this greatly complicates its algorithm, or rather not the algorithm of signal formation but the logic of formation of trading signals based on their large number.
Of course we can simplify everything, but then I will not get the above results, there will be a lot of false positives and the performance of the TS will decrease dramatically, not proportional to the simplification of the logic of the indicator and the number of adjustable parameters.
This is all abstract reasoning without any idea about the indicator and TS itself, that's why the topic is not about that, but about a simple TS on the wheelbarrow, the second main article is given as an example.
Here's an interesting thread about MAs https://www.mql5.com/go?link=https://forum.alpari.com/index.php?/topic/52653-forex-mozg211492isshimokueur/
It's all clear, it's basically the basics of tehanalysis, my question is about the limits of such systems.
It's all clear, it's basically the basics of tehanalysis, my question is about the limits of such systems.
In that case, your question is about the same basics...
By universality I meant that the indicator should handle as many different market situations as possible but it complicates considerably its algorithm, not the algorithm of signal formation to be more precise.
Of course, we can simplify everything, but then I won't get the above results, there will be a lot of false responses and the TS indicators will decrease dramatically disproportionately to the simplification of the indicator logic and the number of adjustable parameters.
Writing a universal algorithm does not always make the code more complex - just the opposite, given a correct and systematic approach. Although, of course, it is non-trivial and requires a lot of thought.
Of course, the indicator must be able to handle all possible situations without exception, otherwise the algorithm will not be self-sufficient and such an indicator will not be very useful.
And again, there is no need to strive for a nice picture. The picture may not be so nice that you can hang it on the wall, but it will provide a stable coverage of all situations. Perhaps this is what one should strive for so as not to be disappointed later.
in which case you have a question about the same basics...
Numbers in the studio, please.
As far as I remember, the Serpent Gorynych ended badly. One can only hope that your "Gorynych" is not in danger, he already has many times more heads).
As far as I remember, the Serpent Gorynych ended badly. One can only hope that your Gorynych is not in danger, as he already has many times more heads).
Are you pawning yours?
Another bright head will not be superfluous.
It's all understandable, it's basically the basics of tehanalysis, my question is about the limits of such systems.
Are you pawning yours?
Another bright head won't go amiss.