Absolute courses - page 61
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
These are your open trades: 7 of them. All down, 1 on the plus side by 3 pips.
These are my open trades: 7 of them. All on the plus side, 1 down, it happens. She has every chance of coming back, right?
Correction? Consolidation? no, haven't heard:)
Do you even feel the difference between M5 and H1?
Colleague, if you have H1, then the targets (expected TP) should be bigger than mine. I have 50 pips. And you are catching the units of a pip. You have to catch pips by analyzing M1. Or even ticks.
For example, here is a construction based on the FFT:
This is AUDUSD. I decomposed the price into 3 components: SMA, positive additive to SMA, and negative additive to SMA, and showed in the figure respectively SMA+positive additive and SMA+negative. If you catch a single pip, even from here you can see that AUDUSD is preferable to sell. Though it is not much preferable. The order of SMAs here = 256 bars.
For example, here is a construction based on the FFT:
This is AUDUSD. I decomposed the price into 3 components: SMA, positive additive to SMA, and negative additive to SMA, and showed in the figure respectively SMA+positive additive and SMA+negative. If you catch a single pip, even from here you can see that AUDUSD is preferable to sell. But it is not much preferable.
Oh, it will be difficult to automate all this, since you still haven't formalized the entries even for yourself.
Oh, and it will be difficult to automate all this, as you have not yet, even for yourself, formalised the inputs unambiguously.
What's so complicated about the DFT? It's simple and doesn't require any computing resources. It's not a problem to formalise it. It does not matter how to formalize, what is important is that the formalization is the same in the process of making different transactions. So that the system parameters do not change. And what they are is not the point. You've got it. If the system contains the seed, it's not the values of the parameters that are important, but their invariance. And profitability can be regulated by the lot size.
What's so complicated about the DFT? It's simple and doesn't ask for any computational resources. Formalisation is not a problem. It doesn't matter how to formalise, what is important is that the formalisation is the same in the process of making different transactions. So that the system parameters do not change. And what they are is not the point. You've got it. If the system contains the seed, it's not the values of the parameters that are important, but their invariance. And the profitability can be regulated by the lot size.
I totally agree. If the idea works, then it works for all pairs, and most importantly it is the same, not "you can buy here and sell here, so, why, oh yes, I saw it on the chart" - that is a READY rule.
You can see the trend here even without the indices, And this one is the most unprofitable at the moment, the price has rolled back, that's normal.
I totally agree. If the idea works, then it works on all pairs, and most importantly, it works in the same way, not "you can buy here and sell here, so, and why, oh yes, I saw it on the chart", which is a REAL rule.
And having understood that, you began to draw straight lines on charts of RELATIONSHIPS (we talked about it at the beginning of this thread) from time (a masterpiece!). And you find trends there as well. Yep.