Let's sort out the phiba - page 4
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
Is there any evidence that anything in the financial markets is profitable?
Proof, not proof :)
This is an error due to lack of information (knowledge) at the time of the statement.
And Fiba in the market is rather not a product of lack of knowledge, it is a belief such as this
This mistake, therefore, is not applicable to Fibo?
P.S. Not everyone can see the Gopher.
Excuse me, do you know any proof of the profitability of the phiba?
I'm not asking him, just yes or no.
h ttp://forum.alpari.ru/thread43068.html
I'm surprised. He seems sane. I am confused, I just proved for myself a long time ago that fiba is not usable in the market, I will not give any proof here.
I'm surprised. And the man seems sane. I'm confused, I just proved for myself a long time ago that fiba is not usable in the market, I will not give proof here.
Everything is good in combination.
And the ability to use the tool, of course.
And use it for its intended purpose, not to hammer piles with it. :)
Let's just say you have no proof of the profitability of fiba work. And your words sound more like a clever sophistic utterance. No more than that.
My words sound like a common technique in statistical hypothesis testing - if you can't prove presence, you have to admit absence.
Can you give a mathematical proof of a workable fiba? Do that and all the critics will shut up.
Everything is good in combination.
And the ability to use the tool, of course.
And use it for its intended purpose, not to hammer piles with it. :)
Everything that works individually can be used as a package
Before you put something into a complex, it must prove that it can work on its own without a complex.
Complexes often conceal a "salad bar" in the hope that one element will fail and the other one will pull it out.
More often it is as follows: we open by such-and-such rule and close by such-and-such branch partially, and by such-and-such remainder.
But these elements do not work separately, nor will they work together
Swetten, thanks for the link. I have seen this PAMM many times, but I did not know that the manager trades on Fibs. It means, that man is able to cook these Fibs.
Anything that works on its own can be applied as a package
But these elements do not work individually, nor will they work together
Not many things work on their own.
A single neural network, for example.
But add it to the complex -- read the NS committee -- and the picture is completely different.
I didn't want to get into this thread, but I'll add this for myself.
Not one person I have spoken to can explain to me what fibs have to do with forex. Not a single one. If no one can, it means that they have nothing to do with it.
I have not seen a single Expert Advisor that works exclusively on fibos. And if fibs do not provide shifting of profit probability even by one percent, then why apply them? For fun?
They say: " I noticed that price bounces back frequently". What is "often"? Often is how much? Often, is how much money? And I can tell you that coffee grounds often work. Where is the mathematical proof that fibos work? Where are the statistics? Where are the stats? If there are no stats, fuck off, short and simple.
-------------
And now for a bit of maths. I recently asked people here. What is the average ratio of mathematical sum of heights of 2 neighbouring bars to their geometrical sum of heights? Apart from Matemat, no one has been able to answer this question in any meaningful way at all.
For example, for 2 consecutive hour bars on EURUSD this ratio averages 1.38. It is less in the trend and more in the flat. None of you have even tried to analyze these ratios.
Suppose we have 2 bars with the height of 1000 points each. The geometrical sum of their heights will be equal to 2x1000/1.38=1449 points. Thus one is superimposed on the other by: 1449-2*(1449-1000)=551 points. Pay attention to this figure - 551 points, i.e. 55.1% of the bar height.
The figure 55.1% has a very interesting feature, it is more than 50. And it means that you cannot tell from 2 bars where the trend is going or if it exists at all. And how well a silly trawl works with such a figure :) Think about this figure, I highly advise it.
-------------
By the way, one more question for useful brainwashing, including for Matemat:
What is the average ratio between absolute values of price differences of 2 neighboring zig-zag points?
Again, I mean exactly the average value, 100, 200 ... 1000 ZZ cycles. The more, the more accurate.