From theory to practice - page 711
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
IMHO, the practical existence of such a parameter is utopia. Calculating this parameter requires previous raw data - this is obvious. And the breakdown of the model is always abrupt.
Therefore, this parameter (even if it exists), will always be catastrophically late. At the moment of breakage, the algorithm won't fix anything - at all.
I can illustrate this with an example of Hearst (its counterpart), if you like.
Well yes, nothing symbolises the end of a trend.
are those who wanted to buy, have already bought everything, and have started to close their positions.
Alas, I think so, we do not draw a line, we do not see what we wanted to call a trend, the trend line you draw using only 2-4 candles, and the fact that the other bars do not participate in this graphical construction, well, so it was assumed
A trend is a stable directional movement. It is not a line drawn on a chart by someone using some candlesticks.
I can illustrate this with an example of Hirst (its counterpart), if you like.
Nah, you don't need things that don't work.
If nothing you know works, then you need hypotheses about where to dig.
A trend is a stable directional movement, not a line drawn on a chart by someone using some kind of candlestick.
Yes, that's right, but everyone on the forum either draws a line and calls it a trend, or looks for this line in mathematical studies
a Dow trend is really a trend and a line is a line )))
Let's think about why trend reversals happen in the first place.
The only ones who wanted to buy are those who have already bought everything and started to close their positions.
I see another misconception about the markets.
What do you mean by"starting to close your positions"?
For the most part, everyone thinks that the forex market is purely speculative, but in fact it is not. Most of the big trades in the market are momentary. You buy or sell and you're done. They do not have to wait for some kind of closing.
But there are speculative deals with their own twists and turns, which are the liquidity in the market. There are a lot of them and they bear all the weight of losses. Without them, the market would have sagged very deeply. Speculators are needed as fodder for the big players. You can't get much from the big guys, but you can get a lot.
Most people think that the forex market is purely speculative, but in fact it is not. Most of the big trades in the market are momentary. You buy or sell and you're done. They do not need to wait for some kind of closing.
Well, if one accepts such a position, it means that trend reversals are random and the author of this topic has nothing to look for.
Well, if you take that position, then trend reversals are random and the author of this thread has nothing to look for.
No. They are not random, but depend largely on external factors. FAs, high profile disasters, rumours.
Friends, please have a look at the GBPUSD chart for October-November 2018. These are tests on my new TS.
The green circles are positive trade entries with a "return to average" (5 trades in total with a total profit = 282 pips).
The red circle is a negative trade entry that instantly gave a loss of -160 pips.
Has anyone who trades counter-trends managed to avoid such a setback? How?!? Can you tell me or show me on the chart please...? Well, help me out a little, eh?
Visually, the profit in the 5th trade and the loss in the 6th trade are roughly the same. Then why are the numbers +282 for 5 trades and -160 for one?
Actually, 5 profitable trades to one losing one is a very good result and by no means a failure.
Another thing is whether the same picture will be true over a distance of a hundred trades)