This topic has been reported for inappropriate content
- This topic has 246 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
(Sometimes I use this thread to store some thoughts for later investigations. You know I love this monologue. This is one.)
Eurusdd said that EURUSD fulfills 8 out of 10 fractal conditions (see here or here). I wondered what those conditions could be. While investigating another topic, I found an interesting chapter on fractal stochastic processes as well as self-similarity. The author wrote that all statistical moments have to be similar for data from a magnification-corrected magnified and non-magnified process. From that point of view it seems to be possible that Eurusdd’s 10 properties for fractal processes are just the identity of the first 10 statistical moments (expectation, variance, skewness, kurtosis, etc.) regarding the magnification factor.
If the signals of the similarity principle are just mandatory effects of fractal markets, then the correction movement to the begin of dis-similarities are not caused by market makers …
Think about it!
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
I found an interesting chapter on fractal stochastic processes as well as self-similarity.
Great article & tutorial – thanks for sharing!
s.
A good trader is a realist who wants to grab a chunk from the body of a trend, leaving top- and bottom-fishing to people on an ego trip. (Dr. Alexander Elder)
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
(Иногда я использую эту нить, чтобы сохранить некоторые мысли для более поздних исследований. Вы знаете, я люблю этот монолог. Это один.) Eurusdd сказал , что EURUSD выполняет 8 из 10 фрактальных условий (см здесь или здесь ). Я задавался вопросом, что может быть эти условия. Расследуя другую тему, я нашел интересную главу о фрактальных случайных процессов, а также самоподобием . Автор писал , что все статистические моменты должны быть одинаковы для данных из увеличивались и без увеличения процесса увеличения скорректированной. С этой точки зрения, представляется возможным , что Eurusdd в 10 свойств для фрактальных процессов только идентичность первых 10 статистических моментов (математическое ожидание, дисперсия, асимметричность, эксцесса и т.д.) относительно коэффициента увеличения. Если сигналы принципа подобия лишь обязательные последствия фрактальных рынков, то коррекция движения к начало распоряже- сходства не вызваны маркет-мейкерами, … Думаю об этом!
Kind time.
I agree we will melt that the market moves not as a market makers want. I studied Gunn’s works and a large number of historical quotations, and found many cycles in the market.
for an example try to postpone on the monthly diagram of GBPUSD 189-191 months from any peak or a bottom.
Ничто не ново под луной:
Что было, то и будет.
Я завершаю круг и - вновь
Готов бежать по кругу...Cycle of eurusd.
best regard TraderTM.
Ничто не ново под луной:
Что было, то и будет.
Я завершаю круг и - вновь
Готов бежать по кругу...This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Hmm … Do you think that Ganns and Eurusdds concepts are somehow related?!
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Just a personal note: I honestly appreciate your patience and thoroughness investigating Eurusdds fragments of a concept. However, don’t take them too seriously. If you gathered any valuable insights based on those threads (I think you did), it is likely that they are an outcome of your very own research inspired by some of his remarks and less of an enlightenment on the path of his teaching. There is a not inconsiderable chance that Eurusdd was the one who knew least what exactly he was talking about. Whenever someone claims to be “way out of your league”, he “almost surely” is not. I don’t know if you searched for his (presumed) identity and activities apart from trading. Personally, after doing so and reading his threads on the web, I come to my conclusion that basically Eurusdds ego is ahead of himself. This does not imply that one should not draw inspiration from his way of thinking. I decided to not invest additional time to dig for that potential burried treasure but I’m anytime keen to hear that I was wrong. I wish you success!
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
@Felix
Thanks for your comment. Yes, maybe Eurusdd didn’t know exactly what he was talking about. However, I’ve seen that his ideas contain new and outstanding approaches. On the other hand I’ve noticed that his claims are not always correct and somewhat inconsistent. For instance, some of his success numbers are not true (e.g. you can’t approach 93 % winning trades with his 5 sequences 3 subsequence idea – 75 % seems to be a more valid number) and he didn’t care about the rare (3 %) occurence of dissimilarities when it comes to the stoch-BB-method (cf. here). Furthermore I suggest that the high percentages of winning trades of Eurusdd or other participants in the similarity thread are not due to the systems introduced there itself. I assume that it is more due to hedging.
Hmm. Which sources “apart from trading” do you mean? I also did some research online. But the only things I could find are some posts at babypips, many spam threads here (search for threads of “Justin White (kwame)” and posts of “Bonzion”) as well as maybe two or three publications of him. I wonder if you could send some links.
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Yes, the ~93% probability is only true if the numbers are generated by a random process (not independent random numbers as the theorem says, then it would be ~83%, nitpick, anyway…) and, more important, only if you look at the complete 5-sequence after being formed, not during its formation. If you scan for sequences where only a subset of the equations are fulfilled (unavoidable if you don’t know the future), you also increase the probability of finding those patterns where the theorem doesn’t hold. The theoretical/posteriori probability is indeed 15/16 but the probability when applying the idea in an “online” way to an incomplete pattern as vaguely suggested by Eurusdd is 3/4.
Ok, so you probably know of the “Bonzion forex system” on ghanaweb.com and other self-profiling spam threads à la “I can coach Nigeria!!!”, an affiliation with a snowball system, etc. (https://web.archive.org/web/20050225060939/http://www.eternal.esmartdesign.com/guil.htm, https://web.archive.org/web/20050209020041/http://www.eternal.qn.com/). But actually I meant his passion for almost proving some famous unsolved problems in mathematics.
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/000702.html
http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/community/u9922
http://planetmath.org/node/7239
Sorry to sound a little cynical – I neither have the competence nor the courage to try proving such stuff – but it is always the same pattern again and again: announcements in capital letters, impatient reactions to criticism and disappearing after disproof.
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Wow. I’ve found some of his I’m the greatest mathematican and solved Fermat’s las theorem but I haven’t seen these other posts. Funny. No … Stupefying. Thanks for those links!
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
One more thing regarding the formalized similarity principle (http://www.forexfactory.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1539695):
kprsa summarized / translated it here: http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=7893960#post7893960. I can’t give a profound opinion on that but after some reading I think that this definition is elaborated emptiness. An impressive encoding, not wrong and that’s it. Formally describing a problem without containing any solution. If anybody is inspired by this formalization: fine, let us know!
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Yes, it is. I deciphered it before some months (unfortunately I have recognized krpsa’s post too late). It just says that there should be two stochastic processes that agree almost surely. A contradition can only occur if values generated by both processes are not bijective (see my former post with the stochastic indicator as explanatory example). It doesn’t give any clue why prize should return to those contradicting prize levels. If you’re interested in, I could send you another pdf with further explanations.
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Ok, in that case I’ll post it in German first. If someone is really interested, I can try to clear all points … Attached you should find two documents – a pdf with some explanatory notes as well as an image which should be also useful for others to understand the theorem
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Example: Price and Stochastic
Let X1 be the prize process and X2 be the stochastic generating process with lookback period %k. For the last k bars you can find the stochastic multiple times at the value of 0 or 100. In those cases it is possible to conclude from the prize history to the corresponding stochastic value but from the stochastic values alone you are not able to conclude on the correct prizes, even if you know the current prize value (that’s what in the image the one-directional arrows indicate).
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Just for reference: At babypips Eurusdd (aka Certainty) wrote that a representative MA most of the time possess an angle of 30 to 45 degree. Many may have wondered why this should be the case. While reading an older article of Hans Hannula, I realized that this may have to do with the chaotic behavior of the market, although this would be contradictory to Eurusdds explanations …
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Hans Hannula’s (aka Al Larson) article is a great link, thanks for this, @Anti.
However, when strolling around on his website, and finding offers like selling his AstroMarkets Formula for only 36 million USD (see above pic) or his The Face Of God Course for just 1800 USD (“Secret. Online course. Reveals Al’s unique discovery of a planetary pattern that shapes all market movements.”) I’m beginning to doubt that anyone should trust this guy.
Anyway: that chaos article is nice, and leaves me with very ambivalent feelings when compared to contents that I would call ‘dubious’, to say the least.
s.
A good trader is a realist who wants to grab a chunk from the body of a trend, leaving top- and bottom-fishing to people on an ego trip. (Dr. Alexander Elder)
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Yes, I also doubt the usefulness of those Astro bullshit offers that I found on the website. Nevertheless, the article seems to be a good start for further investigations on the application of chaos theory to trading.
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Absolutely! That’s why I reported about my ‘ambivalent feelings’: the quality of that chaos article on one hand (although not digging really deep), and that astro stuff on the other hand.
Weird, somehow.
s.
A good trader is a realist who wants to grab a chunk from the body of a trend, leaving top- and bottom-fishing to people on an ego trip. (Dr. Alexander Elder)
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Let me note one serious flaw of the above mentioned article:
Scrolling down to the headline ‘Learning to Judge the Behavior of Chaotic Markets’ and figure 4, we find that the author suggests to measure price slope like angles, in degrees. Knowing that we can rescale our charts in both dimensions on screen, this is obviously mathematical nonsense (just like Gann Angles).
Something different has to be found to replace the angle measurement, like rate of change or absolute price change divided by medium or long term ATR.
A good trader is a realist who wants to grab a chunk from the body of a trend, leaving top- and bottom-fishing to people on an ego trip. (Dr. Alexander Elder)
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
@simplex: I don’t think that it is nonsense. But it depends on the scale you use on both dimensions. That’s something no-one tells. But I haven’t thought to use an EMA. Maybe something like a true range (not averaged) may be more helpful in order to decide between ranging (balanced) and trending market situations.
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
@Anti: Sure, it is possible to gauge your template in a way that the angle between an MA and a horizontal line represents the momentum of a price move.
Yet my point is, if you change to another display with different number of pixels, your ‘angles’ are likely to change. And even if your new display has the same number of pixels, but the relationship between height and width of those pixels is different, the angles will change.
This is why it does not make sense. For a sustainalbe trading logic, measurement units are required which do not change from one hardware and / or software setup to another. Angles as a unit of price momentum do not provide that kind of robustness.
A good trader is a realist who wants to grab a chunk from the body of a trend, leaving top- and bottom-fishing to people on an ego trip. (Dr. Alexander Elder)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.