From theory to practice - page 499
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
Besides, even the wording implies being one step too late
Are you familiar with the concept of causality?
I will erase all this later, so as not to clutter up the branch out of respect for the topicstarter.
you should not confuse the concepts: "period" and "sample length" are not the same thing.
In non-stationary systems, not only amplitude, but also frequency and phase can be non-stationary.
For example, the familiarly simple and straightforward sine wave
would look like this
and how it behaves depends on the non-stationary parameters. And its behavior can be radically different and not at all like a sinusoidal.
Besides, the rule does not always work that the higher TF gives the decision for the lower one, because it may be the other way round, the ticks are already ticking in the other direction, so it is a rule of thumb. But just because the trend is long-lasting or inertial for some time, it is like redrawing indicators, the tail is always influencing, how to make a decision in such a case?
Your beloved TViMS will not answer this question, nor can they in principle.
.
the higher TF is the leading one
the lower TF is the slave
It's the law. Another thing is that we are not always able to recognise changes in the master's assignment to the slave in time.
It's just that I've moved away from the period category, I'm more interested in sample length.
This is just an example.
On what basis is this a law? Just because big trends are long term?
General systems theory -- take a look and you'll get the basics you're interested in.
Either way, it will do you good.
s.
you can google it. For techies. (but not for managers/humanitarians, there's some of that stuff out there)
I remember you used to have a blog on some website, I don't remember it anymore, and I was really fascinated by it, but as you change, so do your expectations. I tried those things you talk about on the charts, I watched the behaviour of all the derivatives, but the question of making a decision remains open in this case.
Interesting.
And what did you get out of the derivatives? Or didn't you?
These are very good words:
Even stronger words:
Without purpose there is no system.
The main thing is the system-forming factor, everything, with what begins, and you have a postulate, a law, a constant, everything.
In this case, you are completely arbitrarily and groundlessly transferring my words about the law, relating to the problem of hierarchy, to anything and everything.
What for you, in your understanding, is a system-forming factor?
Does a speck of dust set the tone of the universe? Or does the universe dictate to a dustpan its framework?
Without a foundation, there is no system, I would say, there must be a foundation, a fulcrum.
Chaos also needs a foundation, a fulcrum. But without a goal, chaos remains chaos, and a system does not become a system until the goal is manifested.
You have deduced an axiom:
the lower TF is the slave.
Well, tics are closer to you and easier to understand. But still try to understand that one hour candle is the cumulative sum of ticks for an hour, and one day candle is the cumulative sum of ticks for a day. A trend that exists on a daily TF absorbs both hourly candles and ticks.
It is not the postulate that is lame. It is your perception and understanding of the postulate that is lame.