A topic for traders. - page 214
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
By the way, about "miserable" wages: the average wage in Kazakhstan is higher than in Russia by about 30 per cent. So the issue of social explosions is not about salaries
Where is it higher ? On paper ?) The average salary in KZ is about 10,000 roubles. Food prices are about the same as in the RF
So how do you build a 'zigzag' correctly so that the numbering of the waves lends itself to some kind of logic and meaning, has a clear structure?
Or is it not possible?
The question is not for you personally, but in general...
After all, before pulling a theory on a zigzag, it has to be built somehow correctly. Simple methods in the form of deviation step, etc. are not very suitable in my opinion.
Well purely as an option: regression channels adapting to maximize R^2, a new segment (and channel) arises as soon as RMSE rises above some threshold.
transcendreamer #:
Why be so pessimistic... Maybe soon there will be a breakthrough, augmentations, implants and we will live like in cyberpunk.
When all my peers have already passed away, you're bound to think like that - I live in the Urals, not in the Caucasus, and I can't be 100 years old, all the more so because of diabetes).
When all my peers have already passed away, you cannot help but think - I live in the Urals, not in the Caucasus, and I can't be 100 years old, especially since I have diabetes).
So how do you build a 'zigzag' correctly so that the numbering of the waves lends itself to some kind of logic and meaning, has a clear structure?
Or is it not possible?
The question is not for you personally, but in general...
After all, before pulling a theory on a zigzag, it has to be built somehow correctly. Simple methods in the form of deviation step, etc. are not very suitable in my opinion.
In my opinion no way, the zigzag is a useless tool - a dumb draw on the vertices. There can be no theory based on it in principle. We should use bandpass filters, conventional MACD because: 1) we separate the movement more or less, but of a fixed dimension. The zigzag is not limited by anything: neither by price steps nor by the number of bars 2) the band filter can introduce divergences without which the market cannot be described as they are present at every step.
Like here, movements from 300 to 3500 pips, 5 and 100 bars long respectively. What kind of repeatability can you expect when looking at movements in such a huge range? They have nothing in common, Zigzag has not marked them out in any way - it simply can't do that. And for comparison, a poor standard MACD, which immediately shows the price fluctuations in a more or less definite range. Immediately there is more consistency and certainty in looking at the price chart.
Well purely as an option: regression channels adapting to maximise R^2, a new segment (and channel) arises as soon as RMSE rises above some threshold.
I'll pretend to understand.
The thread is large and noisy, but it is of no use to the forum: there are no ideas, no formulations and criteria, no theories - nothing at all. There is only pathos and big talk from the author of the thread, and a logical shambles, which he provokes in such a manner, when he pretends to be an expert with a clear lack of achievement. Somebody wrote here that the man has developed the subject of waves, like a good man. Where did he go? For example here I have only seen the primitive numbering of tops according to the zigzag and in addition there is nothing substantial about waves, channels and market laws. In essence and subject - exactly zero.
That is the ability to make a fuss - is not a criterion of forum participant usefulness, otherwise you can take a picture of your naked ass and post it - so the hype will be even more. This is not a tictock after all.
Legitimate squabble you gentlemen, and you including, because you do not like my ideas work, and still stifle pity that not all posted on the plate.
With this attitude of yours towards me I shouldn't do it, but I'm trying.
"primitive numbering of vertices by zigzag" you say).
Then youhave not mastered even suchprimitive numbering of vertices on a zigzag and do not understand the importance of it.
What to understand it, you need a deep understanding of the process reflected in the graphs.
===
I don't care about those insults from the drimmer. He's just being mean and creating a rotten atmosphere, and the moderators don't pay attention.
The thread was created to share useful information for traders, and from the envious and trollers it has turned into what it is.
+++++++++
I think this branch should be left alone, and for communication for traders open a new one from scratch, with strict moderation.
A branch for traders is needed.
If there is no support, I will open an open group for communication between traders in chat.
___
What are your opinions?
Offer normal ideas, rather than pathos that izersky stingy).
When all my peers have already passed away, you're unwilling to think - I live in the Urals, not in the Caucasus, and I can't be 100 years old, especially since I have diabetes).
There is no cure for it yet, but just the other day there was a news about FGF1 to replace insulin and there were optimistic hopes, though I am not a specialist...
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2021.12.004
(pdf paid, but overview can be understood as is)
...because you don't like my ideas
So there weren't any 😆 - nothing to discuss.
I'll pretend to understand.
😀 Yes, just overlay the regression channels on the graphonium - so that each channel is good (with low error rate or high coefficient of determination)