From theory to practice - page 1960
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
A clever market joke: the maximum number of Technical Analysis events (levels, any curve crossovers, divergences/convergences, etc.) will occur at times that are not suitable for trading. Regardless of the construction method and the internal logic.
It's not the conspirators who catch other people's stops, it's just the way the world works :-) the maximum probability of level capture (stop triggering), before the price rolls back.
A clever market joke: the maximum number of Technical Analysis events (levels, any curve crossovers, divergences/convergences and so on and so forth) will occur at times that are not suitable for trading. Regardless of the construction method and the internal logic.
it's not conspirators catching other people's stops, it's just the way the world works :-) the maximum probability of a level (stop triggering), before the price pulls back.
Every TA level is groups of people waiting to sell or buy at that price. They will at any rate make a trade at that level. But these trades may not be successful for everyone. For speculators this becomes especially acute. Not all speculators are in the market; they are a small proportion of the market. They are the liquidity for the big market clients. A simple example. Night trading by speculators. They cannot move the market.
Each TA level is a group of people waiting to sell or buy at that price. They will at any rate make a trade at that level. But not all these deals can be successful for everyone. This becomes especially acute for speculators. Not all speculators are in the market; they are a small proportion of the market. They are the liquidity for the big market clients. A simple example. Night trading by speculators. They can't move the market.
In reality, they don't give a shit. Relying on (classic "strategies", with lines, zigzags and curves) TA will get you into worse conditions for yourself. Such a squiggle about probabilities - the event is detected at the moment "when it's too late to drink the borjomi", everything has already passed, and uncertainty comes. Thresholds (levels/lines, whatever the chart may contain) will be detected when increasing noise/volatility and weakening signal are successfully added together. And it's not just about MA's and levels. Zigzags and channels, graphing are the same MA, side view.
In reality, it doesn't matter. Relying on (classical "strategies", with lines, zigzags and curves) TA will get you into worse conditions for yourself. Such a squiggle about probabilities - the event is detected at the moment "when it is too late to drink the borjomi", everything has already passed, and uncertainty comes. Thresholds (levels/lines, whatever the chart may contain) will be detected when increasing noise/volatility and weakening signal are successfully added together. And it's not just about MA's and levels. Zigzags and channels, graphing are the same MA, as viewed from the side.
The markets have regularities and they work. It is another matter that the regularities are not constant. If there were consistency, the market would disappear.
Those who are younger and not too lazy can check for themselves.
Take any Expert Advisor in codebase (crossover mas, monkey-turnover, anything, even random inputs),
gather stats on characteristic moments (opening/closing/booing), see how they are distributed.
If it is amenable to optimization, then compare with result after optimization.
wonder and think a lot :-)
Those who are younger and not too lazy can check for themselves.
Take any Expert Advisor in codebase (crossover mas, monkey-turnover, anything, even random inputs),
gather stat on characteristic moments (opening/closing/exit to boo), see how it is distributed.
If it is amenable to optimization, then compare with result after optimization.
wonder and think a lot :-)
Why think)))))
Those who are younger and not too lazy can check for themselves.
Take any Expert Advisor in codebase (crossover mas, monkey-turnover, anything, even random inputs),
gather stat on characteristic moments (opening/closing/exit to boo), see how it is distributed.
If it is amenable to optimization, then compare with result after optimization.
Wonder and think a lot :-)
Most speculators focus on TA. And there is a category of players (large), let's say they need liquidity, they focus on the number of accumulated orders on the level. This is liquidity without a big drawdown for their trades. Why bother with small trades if there is liquidity at the level.
Yes, I agree with Maxim. Naked TA is useless. But it is useful in combination with complex knowledge about markets, politics, economy. And the weather)))
Most speculators focus on TA. And there is a category of (large) players, let's say they need liquidity, they focus on the number of accumulated orders per level. This is liquidity without a big drawdown for their trades. Why bother with small trades if there is liquidity at the level.
Yes, I agree with Maxim. Naked TA is useless. But it is useful in combination with complex knowledge about markets, politics, economy. And the weather)))
As a working hypothesis: not quite again :-) The category of big ones hardly care about the market buzz around the glass.
Sometimes only and for political reasons, and not always.
The volumes hit the (currency) market without any direct connection with previous quotes or their perspectives, they don't even try to earn on it, that's why they cannot be understood from quotes.
That is, not looking at the candlestick history, but simply because there is a volume that needs to be exchanged. It's the candlesticks that adjust to it, and not for nothing. Some of the speculators "fly in", only because of that the price agrees, otherwise, as he himself said, "speculators are incapable to influence the price".
A lyrical digression:
If someone flies in, the question is who, in order to avoid (or at least not immediately) becoming one of the "lucky". From the combined point of view of mathematics and philosophy (they are at the same time here), the robots and the whole TA fly in. Anything that works solely on the analysis of previous data will migrate to the area of loss. There is only a competition for speed of entry in the special Olympics. Because new information arrives, which was not only in the ratios and conditions, but also in the problem statement and algorithms.
On small timeframes, you can observe this process with your own eyes - optimise the robot and see where it is moving/shifting then in the long forward.
You can see the "signals" and PAMMs where the martingale is inside and it leaves a trace in the equity/balance - the "snot" and its size + frequency increase towards the inevitable end. Martin is evil, of course, but it shows the exhaustion of the algorithm
as a working hypothesis: not really again :-) The category of big ones hardly cares about the market fuss around the glass.
Sometimes only for political reasons and not always.
The volumes hit the (currency) market without any direct connection with previous quotes or their perspectives, they don't even try to earn on it, that's why they cannot be understood from quotes.
That is, not looking at the candlestick history, but simply because there is a volume that needs to be exchanged. It's the candlesticks that adjust to it, and not for nothing. Some of the speculators "fly in", only because of that the price agrees, otherwise, as he himself said, "speculators are incapable to influence the price".
A lyrical digression:
If someone flies in, the question is who, in order to avoid (or at least not immediately) becoming one of the "lucky". From the combined point of view of mathematics and philosophy (they are at the same time here), the robots and the whole TA fly in. Anything that works solely on the analysis of previous data will migrate to the area of loss. There is only a competition for speed of entry in the special Olympics. Because new information arrives, which was not only in the ratios and conditions, but also in the problem statement and algorithms.
On small timeframes, you can observe this process with your own eyes - optimise the robot and see where it is moving/shifting then in the long forward.
You can see the "signals" and PAMMs where the martingale is inside and it leaves a trace in the equity/balance - the "snot" and its size + frequency increase towards the inevitable end. Of course Martin is evil, but it shows the algorithm exhaustion.
I don't like to argue. But if we look at the price history, we can clearly see that we can enter earlier and close now with a large profit.
So, the probability has always been. It always has been and always will be.
My point is. It is necessary to be able to see the future. Perspective. This is difficult for most speculators. It is impossible to achieve a quick result without some preparation, and a passion for quick profits eclipses the mind. Everything is highly predictable. But it is not accessible to the majority of course. Nature will not allow for deviations. You need a special ear for the market, as musicians have or artists have a talent for drawing and painting.
You need a special ear for the market, like musicians or artists' talent for drawing and painting.
You couldn't agree more. Writing the Grail is like writing a program which creates and paints pictures at the level of Leonardo da Vinci or writes symphonies at the level of Beethoven. To capture the "melody" of the market is one thing, but to translate it into code is a monument worthy of its own name.