Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 484
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
Yes, trading in the tester should be like this)
What's wrong with that, based on real ticks)
What's wrong, based on real ticks)
there may be a fit in the tester.
in the tester the fit may be.
and the mt4 tester does not show equity.
There's nothing wrong there)
You may have a one-month chart, not a three-day chart.
I'm just trying to find the right period. 3 collapses in a row.
and before that - a sliding into the sky.
bullshit
the spread trades along the trend, not the counter-trend
and + pyramiding.
on the previous page, a period of 1.5 years, isn't that enough? ;)
if the overlap of the pairs is not correct, we get the counter-trend.
I've been struggling with this for 6 years myself...
bullshit
the spread trades along the trend, not the counter-trend
and + pyramiding.
on the previous page there's a period of a year
if the overlap of the pairs is not correct, it turns out to be counter-trend
I've been dealing with this for 6 years myself...
on the previous page 3 days, actually.
December 4, 5 and 6.
on the previous page 3 days, actually.
4, 5 and 6 December.
2014, the crisis, just happy
:
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/140716/page483#comment_14160563
2014, the crisis, it's a blessing in disguise:
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/140716/page483#comment_14160563
build the turkey before december 4, a month in advance.
euro flies up, chif flies down.
The moduli of increments can be represented graphically by feeding the input data to the zigzag vertices. If a new knee zz is larger than the previous one, then for convenience we call it impulse (I), and if shorter then correction (K).
Now if in the zigzag goes two successive K or two ANDs, the sign of the modulus is repeated, and if K is followed by AND or vice versa, the sign of the modulus changes.
And it is not difficult to notice that zz doesn't like long extensions (ORIIII) or contractions (KKKK) so the probability of C following AND is higher than the appearance of AND.
But how to capitalise on this is unclear.
Nah, I'm digging into a bit of a different subject, on the footsteps used so to speak. Not the incremental modules themselves, but changing the signs of the incremental module difference.
For example, we have the results of some strategy 1 - profit 0 - loss. We take a series of 3 loss attempts with 8 sets (111, 100, 101, 110, 000, 011, 001, 010). We assign an index from 1 to 8 to each series and count the difference in increments. In general all on page 69 used wrote, I repeat once again.
So change of sign or 0 at N possible variants at any strategy will look approximately so (we lead to a coin, that is to SB)
Number of variants for change of sign | ChangeSignOr0 | NoSignOr
2 10% 90%
3 30% 70%
4 50% 50%
5 60% 40%
6 80% 20%
7 90% 10%
8 100% 0
So if for example we take the number of variants 6 with their 80% vs. 20% where we have 2 variants already eliminated and remain say 111, 101, 110, 000, 011, 010 which is also too much) try to wait for the result of the first deal, 1 fell out then variants 000, 011, 010 disappear.
There are 111, 101, 110 left and as we made the first deal virtually, it means that either 11 or 01 or 10 will fall out with 80% probability. Options 01, 10 will not give us profit only 11. So will 80% chance of falling out of 3 possible variants cover 20% chance of something else falling out at all? =)
Nah, I'm digging a bit into a different topic, following the traces used so to speak. Not the incremental modules themselves, but changing the signs of the incremental module difference.
For example, we have the results of some strategy 1 - profit 0 - loss. We take a series of 3 loss attempts with 8 sets (111, 100, 101, 110, 000, 011, 001, 010). We assign an index from 1 to 8 to each series and count the difference in increments. In general all on page 69 used wrote, I repeat once again.
So change of sign or 0 at N possible variants at any strategy will look approximately so (we lead to a coin, that is to SB)
Number of variants for change of sign | ChangeSignOr0 | NoSignOr
2 10% 90%
3 30% 70%
4 50% 50%
5 60% 40%
6 80% 20%
7 90% 10%
8 100% 0
So if for example we take the number of variants 6 with their 80% vs. 20% where we have 2 variants already eliminated and remain say 111, 101, 110, 000, 011, 010 which is also too much) try to wait for the result of the first deal, 1 fell out then variants 000, 011, 010 disappear.
There are 111, 101, 110 left and as we made the first deal virtually, it means that either 11 or 01 or 10 will fall out with 80% probability. Options 01, 10 will not give us profit only 11. So will 80% chance of falling out of 3 possible variants cover 20% chance of something else falling out at all? =)
Nah, I'm digging into a bit of a different topic, on the footsteps used so to speak. Not the incremental modules themselves, but changing the signs of the incremental module difference.
Posted used read some time ago but did it a bit differently than yours. I just gave serial numbers to some graphic patterns and in the course of alternation of patterns the change of the sign of the increments was predicted and the most probable patterns were predicted by it. But it was 50/50.
Of course I need to check it, but I can already say the probability of series is not equal, 000 or 111 will fall out less frequently than 010, etc. And the forecast will not work regardless of what the increment modules show, on the contrary, the rarest series like 000 111 will appear here. The news is primary, sort of.