From theory to practice - page 601

New comment
 
Alexander_K2:

On average the quantile = 2.41 (recall that for a normal distribution the quantile of 99% of the data = 2.5758 for the two-sided test and 2.32 for the one-sided test).

In other words, "on average" we are dealing with approximately normal distribution.

But if we look at a "slice" of the probability density function at a particular point in time for a moving set of data, it is impossible to tell what kind of distribution we are facing.

I repeat - we are talking about pure price now.

This convinces me more and more that there is not and cannot be any fish in pure price. What is needed is some kind of transformed BP. The sum of increments is just a special case of transformation. Something else would have to be analysed...

If there is no fish in the price, how can it be in anything derived from the price?

If there is no ice cream in my fridge, then no matter how you squeeze it, no matter how you saw it, crème brûlée will not appear there.

So either the fish is in the price, or there are 600+ pages of idiots gathered here.

 
Natalja Romancheva:

If there is no fish in the price, how can there be fish in anything derived from the price?

If there is no ice cream in my fridge, then no matter how much you press it, no matter how much you saw it, crème brûlée won't appear there.

So either the fish is in the price, or there are 600+ pages of idiots gathered here.

If there is no fish in the price, there will be no price, there will be no market
 
Natalja Romancheva:

If there is no fish in the price, how can there be fish in anything derived from the price?

If there is no ice cream in my fridge, then no matter how you squeeze or saw it, crème brûlée will not appear.

So either there are fish in the price, or there are 600+ pages of idiots gathered here.

Well ... at least someone began to understand ... found a person with common sense! =) Write in person I need a man like you! I will be glad!)

PS: the fish in the price is mixed with an average of 2% fish (from which the probability distribution is constantly dynamic but does not change much) and 98% chance. so the fish is ... but this phantom can only be fished with the look, absurd ways. =)

 
Martin Cheguevara:

Well... at least someone has begun to understand ... there's a man with sense! =) Write to mein person I need a man like you! I'd be glad to!)


I'm having some kind of deja vu.

 
Vitaly Muzichenko:

Well, screenshots of trades and descriptions of them, and what are they based on.

So you can make pictures by formulas for another 150 years, reach 100500 pages of reasoning, and at the same time do not know what the real market is.

P.S. I see that there is an active discussion of increment, but it is not clear, in what place, and what they want to increment.

And you organise a competition - the practice will be better than the screens.

 
Олег avtomat:

And you organise a competition - practice is better than screenshots.

;)
 
Evgeniy Chumakov:


I'm having some kind of deja vu.

You're right. There is one question. Identify a flat in time. Try to do that. If you do, consider the money you'll make. The problem is this. As the market is 98% random it is almost infinitely versatile. So if anyone has a specific implementation of defining a flat, please post the results. Since there's practice here... for example in my trading it's a real scourge. Every two or three weeks I have to look at a lot of charts and analyze them by eye. Whether there are global periodic fluctuations or not.
 

Why are you so quiet,Vitaly Muzichenko?

I am seriously suggesting you to organize a contest here, you have such experience.

It is clear that under the current conditions of account monitoring, it will be a contest on demo accounts.

The prize will be the very fact of winning. No material prizes (such as cups, wmz, etc.) are not needed. (no need to repeat the recent sad experience).

What do you say?
 
Natalja Romancheva:

If there is no fish in the price, how can there be fish in anything derived from the price?

If there is no ice cream in my fridge, then no matter how much you press it, no matter how much you saw it, crème brûlée won't appear there.

So either the fish is in the price, or there are 600+ pages of idiots gathered here.

It was not a "straightforward" statement to understand, it means that it is difficult to see some points for the result on the price itself, you need to do some conversion over the price to see the necessary effects, and they are there, I assure you.
 
Martin Cheguevara:
Right. There is one question. Identify a flat in time. Try to do it. If you do, consider the money you'll make. The problem is this. As the market is 98% random it is almost infinitely versatile. So if anyone has a specific implementation of defining a flat, please post the results. Since there's practice here... for example in my trading it's a real scourge. Every two or three weeks I have to look at a lot of charts and analyze them by eye. Whether there are global periodic fluctuations or not.
That's the thing, even the randomness can be different.
1...594595596597598599600601602603604605606607608...1981
New comment