From theory to practice. Part 2 - page 139

New comment
 
Алексей Тарабанов:

The zigzag does not construct extrema, but displays them in a well readable form. The standard zigzag, regardless of its parameters, does not allow making any trading decisions at all, it is simply not designed for it.

The tops (intermediate) of a standard zigzag are formed according to the rules: 1. a price move of at least xx pips, 2. a time gain of at least yy bars, 3. some other bullshit.

Are you ready to buy or sell anything on such a signal?

I am not, so the tops of my zigzags are always formed by reversal signals.

There is something mixed up here. If the zigzag only visualises (displays) the data for readability, where does it get it? In particular, the points connected by the broken line? Who constructs the vertices of a standard zigzag, if not itself?
 
Alexander_K2:

I don't know. But I think K. Prutkov said: "If it says 'buffalo' on the elephant's cage, don't believe your eyes".

Some Doctor has infiltrated the branch, who is selling a game, without supporting his words with anything other than "but it's written in a book". That's the most idiotic argument I've ever seen... No statement, no graphs, not even a nice, pretentious slogan... There's nothing. A set of clichéd phrases, an inability to listen, an inability to conduct independent experiments and calculations along the lines pointed out to him...

Eh.... Yeah, what can I say... Tired of it. One-on-one with the market is much more interesting.

Bipolar geese have been living with grandma, now in a maniacal state, now in a depression, for Christ's sake. (c) the vastness of the internet

 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

There were bipolar geese at my grandmother's house, now in a maniacal state, now in a depressive state, for Christ's sake. (c) the vastness of the internet

😂👍
 
Алексей Тарабанов:

I'm not, so the tops of my zigzags are always formed by reversal signals.

Good stuff. 👍
Pity it's one sensible comment for practice for the whole 1390 😂
To develop a sensible stratum you need let's say about a hundred of these in a row, then we need 14000 comments and one madman who will put all the posts scattered around the branch together😄
 
CHINGIZ MUSTAFAEV:
Good stuff.👍
Pity it's one practical comment for the whole 1390 😂
To develop a sensible stratum you'd need, let's say, about a hundred of these in a row, then we'd need 14000 comments and one madman to put all the posts scattered around the branch together😄

Any super-twisty top is the top of a regular zigzag) The reverse is obviously not true. It's quite amusing to read claims that "we have such instruments" that accurately predict reversals)

 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

Any super-turn top is the top of an ordinary zigzag) The reverse is obviously not true. It's quite amusing to read claims that "we have such instruments" that accurately predict reversals)

This is not the point at all.
You don't need to predict anything from it. It gives one extremely important thing on its own.
Ask Alexei, maybe he will tell you.
But then again there is one hitch, which is not so easy to solve. It may go into an "infinite" trend, so periodically it needs to be "reset" so to speak. Or the endless trend itself is a phenomenon for which this method, in the absence of other useful ones, is worth clutching with all your hemispheres.
I advise everyone in this thread, except Alexei Tarabanov of course.
 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

No, thank you.) I don't play this "we have these devices, but we won't tell you about them" game.)

Half-implied narrative usually means there's nothing to tell.)

It's a piece of cake to build one and test it. If it's not, it's not. It's your own business.
 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

Well, I can answer (in a style similar to yours), that I already made "such a thing" fifteen years ago, and not only "such", but even "this"), that it is not only easier to make, but even dried topinambour) I got a trillion profit in testing, etc., etc.) I can, but will not - because I do not see the point...

I would like, remembering Professor Preobrazhensky, ask to express themselves more clearly) Well, or not to express themselves).

Too many words to solve a simple problem.
If you do not want to check, well do not check. Preobrazhensky is out of place here.
 
Calculate the ACF SB?)
 
secret:
Calculate the ACF of SB?)

Good problem, but too difficult) No, I meant those tedious text problems that are solved in one or two steps, but by the time you get to the middle, you forget the beginning)

1...132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146...179
New comment