Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 429
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
Everyone will figure out the rest for themselves....
You shouldn't have written that...
You shouldn't have written that...
I wrote it fine )... Here's a look at how your imagination dialed up the trend, almost like pyramiding!!! ....
As early as 1931, Kurt Gödel elegantly demonstrated in his paper"Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme" that any formally correct system is incomplete, i.e. contains fundamentally indefinable things (incomputable, incalculable), that is, no calculating machine will be able to determine the truth or falsity of some formula, etc.
What is the point of all this? If we are talking about the Grail, which according to most people, once started, must work forever, then this reasoning is not without merit. However, we do not need an everlasting primus needle - the topic says "just a plain one - Bablokos!!!", but not the Grail.
Bablokos, on the other hand, is quite formalizable at some time interval. Bablokos has a lifespan of ~1.5-2 years, which is enough time to develop another formalism for the new changed conditions. Of course, it is not complete, but the best is the enemy of the good, and therefore, spit it out and forget it. And the goal of completeness is not initially set.
What is the point of all this? If we are talking about the Grail, which, according to most people, once started up, should last forever, then this reasoning is not without merit. However, we do not need an everlasting primus needle - the topic says "just a plain one - Bablokos!!!", but not the Grail.
Bablokos, on the other hand, is quite formalizable at some time interval. Bablokos has a lifespan of ~1.5-2 years, which is enough time to develop another formalism for the new changed conditions. Certainly it is not complete, but the best is an enemy of the good, and therefore, spit it out and forget it. And the goal of completeness is not set initially.
It's a sensible idea, but it's still shaky. While it's being formalised, while it's being tested, in general a tester-demo-real-slip... )
Because even at the "tester" stage, the next dough should have started formalizing ) and so spiralling down to Hell.
Z.I.: The most real dough is a signal on some averagely, man, and if we are lucky, and the stars will not become four dice, and the subscribers will have time to earn something, and this, well, what's his name, provider - remembered, well, or all will sell out, but these dough as that evergreen tree, where constantly nestle new woodpeckers, somehow so.
there is an elegant solution to all these problems...
of course there is, for example - stop doing shit
there is an elegant solution to all these problems...
of course there is, for example - stop doing shit
Run all sets, unload yield curves (equity)
To increase the number of curves, we may separately run in the tester buy_only and sell_only. There we may see (on history :) ) It shows, which direction at which moment was traded against the trend.
And to increase the number of curves, you can run buy_only and sell_only separately in the tester. There you can see (on the history :) ) It shows which direction was trading against the trend at which moment.
The balanza chart is divided into two components - trades in plus position, trades in minus position and builds increasing totals on them. We obtain a two-component profit/loss chart of two increasing lines, the distance between them = current balance.
When lines intersect it is a mess.
Then look at the correlation between these lines and the price chart. When the profit/loss correlation abs()>0.7, you are trading in the timeframe trend.