The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 85
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
yosuf: Он считает, что
No, he thinks otherwise. See below, Yusufkhoja.
I don't really believe you can just flip it without trying to justify it convincingly.
Theoretically justify a coup.
Example: there is a "logical" system on two mashes, which wildly fails. But it is "logical" in the sense that if MA1 is higher than MA2 in the trend, then we should go long.
In a coup, it even seems as if it is slightly profitable, but it ceases to be logical. That's what I was talking about.
But the thing is that the first one is losing on the flat, while the second one is losing on the trend. And the apparent profitability of the second one is simply due to the prevalence of the flat in the testing area.
Example:
This is an oversimplification.
It's not about simply reversing signs.
By "flipping" was meant "re-flipping" --- that's more accurate.
This is an oversimplification.
It's not about simply reversing the signs.
By "flipping", I mean "reversing" --- that's more accurate.
It's not interesting. Let me cut your loopholes. There's a maturity test coming up for you.
Just give me a straight answer, straight to the point:
1. Can you just flip the trade sign? As an unsubstantiated blasphemous experiment ?
2. What emotions and/or physiological reactions does such a suggestion evoke for you ?
// Try to actually do it. Feel the gamut of emotions as you go from words to action.That's not interesting. Let me cut your loopholes. There's a maturity test coming up for you.
Just give me a straightforward, straightforward answer:
1. Can you just flip the trade sign? As an unsubstantiated blasphemous experiment ?
2. What emotions and/or physiological reactions does such a suggestion evoke for you ?
// Try to actually do it. Feel the gamut of emotions as you move from words to action.1. No.
2. This is nonsense.
3. Why is the break-even requirement so important?
This is one possible option for checking the adequacy of the synthesised model. It is a very rigorous option.
This is one of possible options to check the adequacy of synthesized model. A very hard option.
Your explanation is nonsense. It is simply your rationalization for your own inflexibility and stubbornness.
--
The theorem: The more lossless the forecasting of any forecasting system, the more catastrophic the forecasting lapses of [that same forecasting system].
Proof:
// Geez, I wrote it down somewhere, can't find it.... I remember that in the margins of some book... I'll look again...
// Chord... maybe later....
Proof:
// I wrote it down somewhere, I can't find it.... I remember it's in the margins of a book... Let me look again...
// Chard... maybe later....
This is one possible option for checking the adequacy of the synthesised model. A very tough option.
Theorem: The more lossless the forecasting of any forecasting system, the more catastrophic the forecasting lapses of [the same forecasting system].
Proof:
// Geez, I wrote it down somewhere, I can't find it.... I remember that in the margins of some book... I'll look for it again...
// Chard... maybe later....
A theorem, you say? ;)))
Look it up. It would be very interesting to have a look. Who is the author?