Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 138

 
...:

http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/janrootkevich

personal statement and beyond.

Write back when you're sure, I'll delete it.

Hopefully, the identification issue will be resolved at this point;)


What about the laws? I googled it - there's nothing
 
...:

http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/janrootkevich

personal statement and beyond.

Let me know when you're sure, and I'll delete it.

Hopefully, the identification issue will be resolved at this point;)


Better yet, mark your name on the spider, e.g. with a link to this page, then you can delete it

Don't hold it against me, we're herding a felon here.

 

In my opinion, the profile on the codex is much more obvious.

And your own words posted there (you noticed them, didn't you?) are proof enough.

I can't post anything on the spider. If you look closely, the nicknames "..." and ".:." are unregistered. All the profiles there were deleted years ago and I don't have access there.

 
...:

http://www.codeplex.com/site/users/view/janrootkevich

personal statement and beyond.

..........

Do not consider me impertinent, give me a link to a tutorial on Adverse, a word I do not know, it's too ear-sharp, and what is it, no one says, or think that not mature, or that not worthy.

True, true. :( And on your site there's software, but without documentation, what is it and for what, I could not understand, which is no wonder, you learn without a dock programming language, try it!

ZZY. Rumor has it that the philosophy is ancient, so I would like to get acquainted with it, at least.

ZZZY. And whether you, by any chance, have any relations with known graalewayed _http://www.pic-grail.com

The avatars look a lot alike _http://forexsystems.ru/member.php?u=9594

 
Lastrer:



Is it difficult for you to type in the word adverse tactics into a search engine ?

I think they even gave you a link, and the link is on the spider, with a breakdown of examples.

 

By the way, I asked a specific person. By the way, I was typing. You know, not very helpful. A lot of water. I need the gist of it, on the cutting edge.

The link didn't work somehow. There's a forum with murky discussions (as far as I remember).

 

I would like a historical approach - then it would be clearer, and on the other hand, it would not be bad to read concise material. And all of this from the authors, not from outsiders with their own understanding. That is why the question to the person(s) close to the body about the doc, which is NOT on the website!

Undoubtedly the latter depends on interest(money)/unequivocal ability to formalise (rather than so by eye)/altruism of full disclosure of the effectiveness of the tactics/banal laziness.

 

I do not know, I personally did not want to go deep into the adverse, I wanted to understand their essence through my own conclusions, I began to digest the return of increments, these patterns also use these properties, but there is also time, you can come to it in different ways through a terver, through specular decomposition and reduction to regularities, but in this case it's just like that - graphically.

They are not clear, because people look at them as drawings but don't understand the essence of why they have such constructions. That is why I asked him to find even a figure triangle on the graph, he will find so many of them that it is horrible and he will think in terror - why this one and not that one and why it worked for him and not that one.


We have missed the discussion about working with time, in fact, time should be taken into account in the pattern itself, in its size and formation, but time plays the role in between, because smaller patterns may be a part of a bigger pattern and in this bigger pattern time is taken into account too.

Personally I was wondering why when you show these pictures, you show static, where the dynamics of changing and correcting patterns are. Or people are waiting when this pattern finishes and a new one appears?

I think it is not necessary to wait, you can always play in the right direction, adjusting the conditions to your goals.

 

It's all murky. Let's put it this way. There is TA (technical analysis) and there is FA. Both of these things cannot be unambiguously formalised. That is, they remain what they were - useless junk.

Question: can the adverse be unambiguously formalized, at least on some TF, time, scale, etc., to be useful. Or too, is it all unambiguous until one looks at the senior scale of the universal vibrator vibration?

 

In order to avoid confusion, in this case it is TA- Tactics of Adversa and not technical analysis, I propose to write TA- Technical Analysis, and Tactics of Adversa - TAdv.

We will continue in this branch not about markets, but about SB, on which it also works. Because it has already been said about the SB for 100 pages.

Reason: