neural network and inputs - page 18
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? And who has written that patterns/legalities work now and then do not and then disappear all of a sudden? It's no longer interesting how to avoid this and get away from guessing: will it work or won't it work?
Some wrong fractals you know, the correct ones do not disappear anywhere and cannot disappear. I am almost sure (what to be modest, 146% sure), that you have not seen fractals, except for those described in Williams's book. They are not easy to find, it takes seven sweats to find them. It is a very laborious task; the experts say that a neuronet is not an assistant here. And finding them is half the battle, and then we have to build MTS on these patterns, and that is where the real "fun" begins.
Are you writing again about something you have no idea about, like robustness? Trolling?
Can you be more specific than puffing out cheeks, advertising Spider and guessing what I "did not see in the eyes"? ))))
Only after you show me the classic fractal known to all, which was, and then suddenly disappeared. You wrote that the patterns/patterns were constantly going somewhere. In history there were, and then suddenly they were gone. If this is true, the number of fractals that no longer work should be huge. Well, one of them definitely should, 100%.
Why hide, show me what fractal there is - it does not work anyway, besides it is classical and known to all (with the exception of me - I have never seen disappeared fractals, at least I will look), a thrown thing.
Here I will write more concretely, on the example of your fractal, as far as possible. Let's see what is there and how, why it has stopped and whether it is a fractal. Maybe we will make some changes and it will work. All will benefit from it.
P.S.Spider doesn't need any advertising. I gave you a link on the subject, it has nothing to do with advertising.
You are confusing me with someone else. I didn't write that the fractal is missing.
And we are not in kindergarten to say that I will show, after you show me ))))
You are confusing me with someone else. I didn't write that the fractal is missing.
And we are not in kindergarten to say that I will show, after you show me ))))
Any fractal is a pattern. You wrote a few pages ago, that it is impossible to show on the history the patterns, which are guaranteed (or with a high probability) to work in the future. You define what you have there that disappears and what you don't.
All trolling, no specificity there.
JImpro:
....
Any fractal is a pattern.
Any fractal is a pattern. You wrote, a few pages ago, that it is not possible to have patterns on history that are guaranteed (or highly likely) to work in the future. Define what you have there that disappears and what you don't.
All trolling, no specifics.
Jambooo you look like a big boy or girl, but sometimes you are talking shit, taking words literally and not even bothering to think about the meaning of what others have to say.
When Leonid was talking about patterns that disappear. I meant that they do not disappear, but cease to work in the future. Obviously, the laws found in the past do not work in the future. That's the main point!!! That is, the market reaction to the pattern changes.... You see, it CHANGES and you can't make money on this pattern in the future. I don't see your favourite fractal working in the market forever. Imagine the same pattern that works all the time. Everybody would use it. But no, the moment comes when occurrence of the fractal does not lead the market to its (fractal's) direction. Why does the NS actually lose in the future? Because finding the regularity the NS makes a move, and the market does not respond to this pattern as it was in the past.
Listen to you, you are the guru of NS. Show me the result, and then you'll start acting like one. Meanwhile you look like a windbag who pretends to know something but shy to say. You say the word, we are not proud and if there is a rational basis in your words will support. If you're talking rubbish, we'll laugh you out of the water. Go ahead.... !!!!! The audience awaits!!!!!!
Psi. Let's have a battle. Give me an example of a pattern that always works......
No, there comes a time when the appearance of a fractal does not cause the market to move in its (fractal's) direction.
A fractal has a clear definition, I gave it above, not every pattern is a fractal. Williams generally called extrema as fractals. You want a fractal cannot give (the market moves in its (fractal's) direction), and then you want to believe that it doesn't matter.
Well bullshit and ok, the market can be studied in many different ways, use not bullshit - no problem. We do talk about different things, but we can always agree on terms.
I don't know why the market should move in "fractal direction", and what is fractal direction anyway? (Williams' "Fractal" has a direction but it's not a fractal) There has never been such a requirement , by me. I was describing a method for finding such patterns no subsequent movements/directions/reactions were discussed there.
(What you're talking about is related to other patterns, for example the one Neo was talking about, there the pattern is already MTS almost ready, and the stop and take in some cases is there, is already at the search and testing stage, there is only a suitable MM to pick up. Patterns (fractals) I am writing about are another thing).
There are only two requirements:
1.Repeatability
2. self-similarity
If only the first requirement is fulfilled, it is a pattern, if the second one is also fulfilled, it is a fractal.
The bricks that make up the graphs are found. The MTS is then built when the patterns (fractals) are found and the chart is marked out. This is needed to be attached to something more or less stable (the structure of these patterns is very stable).
Examples of such patterns and TS built on them are here http://forex.kbpauk.ru/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/advers
Regarding neural nets, it is written that such patterns are undetectable, or at least it would be difficult to do so.
A fractal has a clear definition, I gave it above, not every pattern is a fractal. Williams actually called extremes as fractals. You want a fractal cannot give (the market moves in its (fractal's) direction), and then you want to believe that it doesn't matter.
Well bullshit and ok, the market can be studied in many different ways, use not bullshit - no problem. We do talk about different things, but we can always agree on terms.
I don't know why the market should move in "fractal direction", and what is fractal direction anyway? (Williams' "Fractal" has a direction but it's not a fractal) There has never been such a requirement , by me. I was describing a method for finding such patterns no subsequent movements/directions/reactions were discussed there.
(What you're talking about is related to other patterns, for example the one Neo was talking about, there the pattern is already MTS almost ready, and the stop and take in some cases is there, is already at the search and testing stage, there is only a suitable MM to pick up. Patterns (fractals) I am writing about are another thing).
There are only two requirements:
1.Repeatability
2. self-similarity
If only the first requirement is fulfilled, it is a pattern, if the second one is also fulfilled, it is a fractal.
The bricks that make up the graphs are found. The MTS is then built when the patterns (fractals) are found and the chart is marked out. This is needed to be attached to something more or less stable (the structure of these patterns is very stable).
Examples of such patterns and TS based on them are here http://forex.kbpauk.ru/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/advers
Regarding neural nets, it is written that such patterns are undetectable, or at least it would be difficult to do so.
1.Repeatability
2.self-similarity
Well, we found a pattern that repeats itself and it is self-similar. That is, it builds itself on lower TFs. This is how I understand it. BUT now after the formation of the pattern the market always goes up. And a week after this pattern the market always goes down. Like then????
This is exactly why there are no consistently pouring systems.....