Algorithmic ''centrifuge'' - page 18

[Реter Konow]

Aleksei Stepanenko:

How do you plan to identify and distinguish this?

On history, this is not a problem. Identifying the dynamics in real time is another matter. But, in real time we will use indicators, not dynamics analysis.

Of course, you have to think. It is not a quick matter.

[Aleksei Stepanenko]

Реter Konow:
It's not a problem on history.

What I want to understand is how to distinguish a trend from a flat on history. I mean, a flat can be different in amplitude and period. So can a trend.

[Реter Konow]

Aleksei Stepanenko:

I am interested in understanding how a trend can be distinguished from a flat on history. I.e. a flat may be different in amplitude and period. So can a trend.

The first thing to understand is that it all depends on the Timeframe. Each timeframe has its own scale. The trend and the flat differ in proportions from each other. The trend is elementary two or more times the height of the wave. We can start from this. A flat has short (relative to the timeframe scale and the trend) fluctuations and a wide fluctuation period.

[Реter Konow]

I can't give you all the answers right now. I will think about it and let you know as I think about it.

[Evgeniy Zhdan]

Реter Konow:
I can't give you all the answers right now. I will think about it and let you know as I think about it.

We look forward to it. Your thoughts are very valuable to us.

[Aleksei Stepanenko]

Реter Konow:

The first thing to understand is that it all depends on the Timeframe.

I would suggest doing timeframe-independent tools.

Reg Konow:
I can't give all the answers right now. I will think about it and let you know as I think about it.

Ok.

[Алексей Тарабанов]

Реter Konow:

A flat has short (relative to the scale of the timeframe and the trend) swings and a broad period of oscillation.

Peter Did you understand what you said?

[[Deleted]]

Алексей Тарабанов:

Peter Did you understand what you said?

And then Ostap got carried away.

[Nikolai Semko]

Реter Konow:
I cannot give you all the answers right now. I will think about it and let you know as I think about it.

Peter, a riddle for you:
You have three indicators.

The first two indicators generate signals to open and close trades.
Both indicators are profitable if tested over the last 10 years.
Both indicators have no parameters as they are self-adjusting, i.e. they do not need to be "optimised" and they only use the minute TF or ticks.
The first indicator showed 55% of profitable trades (if we assume that each trade ends in profit or loss of the same size taking into account the spread) and the second one showed 58% of profitable trades.
Analyzing the behaviour of these first two indicators on the history, we can conclude that the first indicator shows its effectiveness at flat parts of the history, while it has negative results on the trend, and the second indicator, on the contrary.

The third indicator predicts the market condition as flat or trending with 66% probability of correct prediction.

Question: how to create the most effective trading system, based on these three indicators:

1. use only the second indicator, because it has a higher efficiency
2. use the first two indicators, independently of each other, as they are both profitable and have a more even balance curve, compensating the losses of each other, depending on the flat or trend
3. using the third indicator, determine what is a trend or flat at the moment, and depending on this, use only one of these indicators at the moment
4. something else

When you get the right answer, you will realize the absurdity of this thread.

[Andrey Khatimlianskii]

The ideal entry point is the ZZ extremum with a spread+point knee size.