From theory to practice - page 1660
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
Obtained this distribution of the deviation of some parameter without any transformations.
:))) I thought there would be a physicist there who would now start blathering about calculating the amplitude of the probability of the price at the next point in time. That would have been extremely interesting. And there's some fool who learned Duk's theory by heart and vainly trying to revive it. It's no fun.
Is there any life left in here? That's good. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I haven't given up forex, I'll join the debate next week.
This Duca is a radio science, or rather the speed of light has been substituted for some bullshit in the formulas.
The result is complete nonsense.
Got this distribution of deviation of some parameter without any transformations.
Yes, I too am coming to the conclusion that we should work without any price transformations (Lambert, etc.). But there should be some filtration of quotes. IMHO it is not correct to work directly with M1 or ticks, while thinning depending on time of day is good.
This Duca is sucked out of radio electronics, or rather the speed of light is substituted for some bullshit in the formulas.
In the end the result was complete nonsense.
Exactly. However, I repeat, maybe there is something there - you just have to understand quantum mechanics deeply and perhaps make corrections to Duk's theory. The same Feynman, for example, in certain mental experiments easily calculated the amplitude of the probability of finding a particle in the next moment.
Exactly. However, I repeat, maybe there is something there - one should only understand quantum mechanics deeply and, perhaps, make corrections to Duk's theory. The same Feynman, for example, in certain mental experiments easily calculated the amplitude of the probability of finding a particle at the next moment.
This is all good, but the price moves only according to one law that directly depends on the money in the deposit, or rather equity.
You need validation, Rena. State is needed, you're always demanding it from everyone. I experimented for a month after another failure, and I'll open the signal again on Monday. Fair enough.
That's all well and good, but the price only goes by one law, which depends directly on the money in the depot.
Whose depot? Yours?
You need validation, Rena. State is needed, you're always demanding it from everyone. I experimented for a month after another failure, and I'll open the signal again on Monday. Fair enough.
Whose depot? Yours?
It is not correct to work directly with M1 or ticks IMHO.
Well, maybe the choice depends on which theory is being worked on.
M1 and others are good because of linearity of time as if nothing is distorted.
The problem with gradients is that it is possible (presumably, I do not confirm yet) to predict a sign of next gradient. But only one, not several in a row.
And judging by the distribution chart, there are not many such opportunities, for example on the hourly chart there was a signal 2019.10.14 on the Jew(although there may be more, I am just investigating).