The right to publicly demonstrate the conclusions of a theoretical forum thread on a live account - page 3
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
The ideas and assumptions, if they are correct, must usually become a trade secret ... you can at least earn something. :). Otherwise, we are dealing with an ulterior motive of attempting to "change the dynamics" of the market :). What's the point? Such an attempt is insane in any of its fundamentals, as it is doomed to fail, inherently. The criterion of truth is not practice, this is for the proletariat. The criterion of Truth is the correspondence of Projections to their Abstractions. Therefore, if it is a demonstration of achievement, let it be an advertisement, whatever. It is, after all, an ACHIEVEMENT!
In honor of my 70th birthday, I will deliberately give up commercial secrets and make them public, in case I detect a persistent pattern, which will not cause any harm to traders, while respecting the obvious ATC requirements, the most important of which is not to interfere in the manual mode of the ATC in any way, no matter how logical the actions of an EA may seem to a trader.
Market cognition is impossible in principle: the market does not stand still and changes faster than these changes can be formalised in any way. Suppose you approximate a graph using a power series and then a new factor intervenes and you have to recalculate everything. This is why the old indicators are still in use, they show only general trends and do not pretend to predict. The simpler and cruder the methods of analysis, the longer they will be used. I think there is hardly anything new to offer in terms of market mathematics. Everything that could be done, humanity has already done. The only thing left is to write trading robots that are not automated yet, but have shown their effectiveness. Theoretical developments are as useless as searching for the chemical formula of liver sausage.
The task is to disprove the thesis highlighted.
It's not "can't", it's "doesn't make sense".
Everything that can be done has already been invented. The problem is that any technique on the market works only as long as it is used by a minority of participants. Regardless of its complexity.
As a result, the question arises - why look for a supercomplex technique, if it gives exactly the same chances for profit as the simplest one? The trader's task is to detect the moment when a technique is used too often and switch to a technique that is currently used by a minority.
I have long been convinced of this, and my Trading Systems League - confirms this idea. I am currently working on the core of the system, so I have not published any reports yet, but I will in a couple of weeks.
I will try to refute that.
The demo signal does not give practical lasting results...
Correct option:
Theory + test report for 2-3 years ( minimum ) + confirmation on the demo for 2-3 months ( minimum ).
Theory + test report for last 5 years ( minimum ) with test proof of non-clearance from 2000 gen to present + confirmation on real for 2-3 years ( minimum ).
I'll try to refute that.
the demo is more convincing in my opinion
Stick to your opinion.
A demo is compulsory and must confirm the test report in part from the total period.
A demo for 3 years cannot be pulled...
You have to pull the real one.
It seems to me too, that a demo account is more convincing for such purposes. But a real account, that must be some kind of "trick". :)
What kind of trick could it be?
You may be right, but for some reason market makers continue to keep quite large teams of mathematicians.
Traders should rely on their mathematicians.
What are you talking about?
The task of the moderator of the thread is to share knowledge and experience and, together with those interested, discuss options for using this knowledge. And he does not have to prove anything to his opponents. And this perl "the right of public demonstration the author of the branch must earn," I do not know how to understand.
No one is not forcing anyone to follow the topicstarter. Who is interested - he understands and follows. Who is not interested - goes by.
Have you thought about what you propose here?
I thought that the author of the idea must first convince the participants, in theoretical terms, that it does not contradict the logic of the market. Otherwise, everyone will want to prove the advantage of his MA, which has nothing to do with the market. This is a property of any numerical series and someone thought it was acceptable to the market. It is a paradox to expect a profit from the idea of a MA-scheme without investing anything from the market. It is a mockery of the market and the market responds with the same coin, ruining the reckless theorists and, following them, the practitioners.