The most banal trading strategy - page 36
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
Stop, stop, stop. I didn't say anything about reliability. I was talking about validity. These are very different things. Credibility is when you are confident in every trade. Reasonableness is just a statistical concept. In a particular deal, things can go completely differently than you predicted, because there is no prohibition to the price to go where it wants.
I have never stated such nonsense. What do you mean by "the amount of information contained within PERIOD and PERIOD+1 is approximately equal"? Are you in your right mind to say that? Isn't it obvious, that there is more information in more counts and to say about any count that there is no information in it is nothing but delirium?
I willingly believe that your system only in this case will "converge".
did you (that's you) draw a predictive price chart, based on the SMA Rup Rdn ?
By at least 1 bar. So when the price goes predictably, the amount of information in the system does not change. By definition of information.
But the system, as far as it's announced, is built around SMA, i.e. to a constant depth. So it turns out that any interval of N bars contains the same amount of information and adding 1 bar to it doesn't change this amount (because it's predicted).
If you write that only in your head there may be positive swaps, it may be seen as rude.
If you write to prove and demonstrate, judging by previous comments, you can neither prove nor show it.
The conclusion is that I do not need to write anything, just close it, turn it off and walk away from the computer.
The question is, do you trade? Do you have a job? Are you retired? Why do you have so much time to argue?
Didn't take the trouble to rewrite the swaps, highlighted where they are positive.
Build rings with positive total swaps.
Дмитрий:
In the end, one formula was shown with several variables with childish "I won't tell you that" comments.
What kind of nonsense have you written? I have shown you a formula that does what it says and you haven't commented on it. It converts the difference forecast with the average into a price forecast.
Dimitri:
And to convert a prediction of the difference between a quote and an average into a prediction of a quote is nonsense.
Clearly, if you are unable to derive this primitive formula that I have shown, it causes you distrust. I cannot help you.
Maxim Kuznetsov:
When the price goes predictably, the amount of information of the system doesn't change. By the definition of information.
If you write that only in your head there may be positive swaps, it may be seen as rude.
If you write to prove and demonstrate, judging by previous comments, you can neither prove nor show it.
Conclusion I do not need to write anything, and just shut down and walk away from the computer
My question is, do you have a job? Are you retired? Where have you got so much time to argue?
Any broker or kitchen has a page with a table of swaps. Google it.
I am not lazy to rewrite the swaps, highlighted where the positives are.
Build rings with positive total swaps.
Thank you, most people can't even Google it, apparently.
What kind of nonsense have you written? A formula has been shown that does what is stated and no comment has been made on it. It converts the difference forecast from the average into a price forecast.
The only person who turned out to be able to at least ask the obvious question....I'm not prepared to give an answer... (c)
Didn't take the trouble to rewrite the swaps, highlighted where they are positive.
Build rings with positive total swaps.
If you look at your picture on audusd and at mine before it is open both up and down and swap is negative on both of them
comment on
Any broker or kitchen has a page with a table of swaps. Google it to help.
Thank you, most people can't even google it apparently.
Maxim Kuznetsov:
when the price goes predictably, the amount of information in the system does not change. On the definition of information.
You have very curious definitions. For me every new count is new information. You may ignore new price readings if you wish.
Actually, if you add absolutely predictable, thenMaxim Kuznetsov is right.