From theory to practice - page 785
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
philosophical digression:
Where is the place for randomness in forex, or more generally, what do you mean by "randomness"?
The very concepts of "randomness" and "price includes everything" are slightly at odds with each other. If the price does not include all the information, then it is impossible to predict its movements on its own. And if there is enough information in it, what are the probabilities - it must be regularities
Not your philosophical digression - philosophical answer.
1. Randomness is an unknowable regularity. In our case, all who are unable to cognize the pattern, begin to imagine the process as random.
2. On the trade: I'll wait for the response to the previous post.
Not your philosophical digression - the philosophical answer.
1. Randomness is an unknowable regularity. In our case, everyone who is unable to cognise a pattern begins to imagine the process as random.
2. By trade: I will wait for the reaction to the previous post.
on which IP, and who is expected to respond ? :-)
philosophical digression:
Where is the place for randomness in forex? Or more generally, what do you mean by "randomness"?
The very concepts of "randomness" and "price includes everything" contradict each other slightly. If the price does not include all the information, then it is impossible to predict its movement by itself. And if there is enough information in it, what are the probabilities - it must be regularities
No, "price includes everything" implies that all currently known information is already included in the current price. I.e., the price will change as new information comes in. I.e. there's nothing to catch anymore, everything is already stolen included before us.))
Hence, there is no contradiction. We do not yet know the new information and it is random by the very definition of information.
2. On the trade: I will wait for a reaction to the previous post.
Not a reaction here, but a simple question:
How is it that you manage to determine that this trending movement has already ended?
After all, at this point all statistics, including Chebyshev's inequality, are torn into fur. Only Markov's inequality works there, up to 100*sigma.
No, 'price includes everything' implies that all known information is already included in the current price. In other words, the price will change as new information comes in. I.e. there's nothing to catch, everything is already stolen included before us.))
Hence, there is no contradiction. We do not know yet the new information, and it is casual by the very definition of information.
No, it is also deterministic.
No, it is also deterministic.
Then she is not information.)
Nah, "price includes everything" implies that all known information at the moment is already included in the current price. In other words, the price will change as new information comes in. I.e. there's nothing to catch anymore, everything is already stolen included before us.))
Hence, there is no contradiction. We do not know the new information yet and it is casual by the very definition of information.
In the definition of information randomness does not take part.
But the manipulation with information is carried out by various methods. If a probabilistic method is used, then "randomness" arises and manifests itself only as a consequence of the application of this probabilistic method.
Nah, "price includes everything" implies that all known information at the moment is already included in the current price. In other words, the price will change as new information comes in. I.e. there's nothing to catch anymore, everything is already stolen included before us.))
Hence, there is no contradiction. We do not yet know the new information, and it is random by the very definition of information.
Still a contradiction. If the new information does not depend on the information accumulated in the price, then there is nothing to catch,
the price chart is solely a "memorial of past ticks".
If it is dependent (one hopes it is), then everything is predetermined for a long period of time - a single fluctuation brings miserable information compared to the accumulated volume.
However, there is still a contradiction. If the new information does not depend on the information accumulated in the price, then there is nothing to catch at all,
The price chart is solely a "memorial of past ticks".
If it is dependent (one hopes it is), then everything is predetermined for a long period of time - a single fluctuation carries miserable information compared to the accumulated volume.
Nothing is predetermined. I haven't changed my mind, but...
Price is information and the actions of participants in the market. The market has by now accounted for the actions of all participants. The information on the market comes and is factored into the price only through the actions of the participants.
However. Not all traders receive the information at the same time, and when they get it, they become the participants of trades. And the price comes to equilibrium again and takes into account all information. And so on. We obtain a certain dynamic equilibrium.
That is, the receipt and consideration of information by the market is a process that is in equilibrium at every moment.
Nothing is predetermined. I haven't changed my mind, but...
Price is information and the actions of participants in the market. The market has by now accounted for the actions of all participants. The information on the market comes and is factored into the price only through the actions of the participants.
However. Not all traders receive the information at the same time, and when they get it, they become the participants of trades. And the price comes to equilibrium again and takes into account all information. And so on. We obtain a certain dynamic equilibrium.
That is, the receipt and consideration of information by the market is a process that is in equilibrium at every moment.
You may have said the thing that A_K screwed up - the apparent reaction is delayed and prolonged. That is, the tick that has come now is not a direct and significant consequence of the previous one. The whole system has not yet had time to fully react to those events, only the nearest node (and/or its neighbours).
And it is also possible with larger bars.
A_K seems to have calculated for the fully quantised case - the event came, everyone reacted and here is the next result.