Higher Edge within a Single Candlestick | Page 31 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

An Edge for an Edge (System Development) 116 replies

Beating the Odds - Edge Within a Single Candlestick (Explained) 71 replies

Looking for higher timeframe candlestick overlay indicator 10 replies

top 2 single candlestick pattern 7 replies

There is No Edge in a Single Candlestick 64 replies

Attachments: Higher Edge within a Single Candlestick
Exit Attachments

Higher Edge within a Single Candlestick

  • #601
  • Sep 27, 2017 12:42pm Sep 27, 2017 12:42pm
Quoting CrucialPoint
... I've mentioned this before along the same lines: The average daily range of any MAJORs is around 120pips. If any trader can't (or don't believe) consistently take 6pips out of 120pip range... That trader needs to be brutally honest with himself. Something is seriously wrong if you can't grab 6pips out of a 120pip range..
Are you sure about that?

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: TooSlow.png Size: 43 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: TooSlow1.png Size: 36 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: TooSlow2.png Size: 53 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: TooSlow3.png Size: 58 KB
My Threads: Trading is as simple as 1-2-3, Highest Open / Lowest Open Trade
  • #602
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:01pm Sep 27, 2017 1:01pm
I think when CP says the minimum he would make with 10K, one must wonder what would be the maximum. I remember CP posting a video of a guy climbing mountains with no equipment, one would think that would be impossible until someone makes it, I think that's the "maximum". Anyways, just a guess.
  • #603
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:05pm Sep 27, 2017 1:05pm
Quoting mentalblocke
I think when CP says the minimum he would make with 10K, one must wonder what would be the maximum. I remember CP posting a video of a guy climbing mountains with no equipment, one would think that would be impossible until someone makes it, I think that's the "maximum". Anyways, just a guess.
oh man, i hope this was a joke, or do you believe in all faked parts?
  • #604
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:06pm Sep 27, 2017 1:06pm
Quoting TooSlow
{quote} Are you sure about that? {image} {image} {image} {image}
Yeah it's bullshit...None of the majors has an average daily range of 120 pips...
"Men Who Can Both Be Right & Sit Tight Are Uncommon" ~ Jesse Livermore
  • #605
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:08pm Sep 27, 2017 1:08pm
Quoting TooSlow
{quote} Are you sure about that? {image} {image} {image} {image}
How we wish it was true.
  • #606
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:12pm Sep 27, 2017 1:12pm
Quoting michisuperfr
{quote} Yeah it's bullshit...None of the majors has an average daily range of 120 pips...
this is crucialpoint, he is so bad in math, that same 120 pip in majors is same like his connected results in roulette. all what is connected to math, dont take to serios when crucialpoint says something about. he has really so much to learn, but he dont cares, he simple fakes all and when he cant hide any more behind his big bullshit and mistakes he runs away and tries it by coming back later when all is forgotten and restarts bullshit again. there are enough believers who trust in his shit, funny or. thats why such posers and fakers will never stop and new come all the time, because its to easy to impress the beginners with bullshit because they cant judge what is true and what is faked and know math unfortunatelly only in lowest level often. they even ask him about things, what you can so easy see its complete bullshit and fake.
  • #607
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:18pm Sep 27, 2017 1:18pm
Quoting strongtrader
{quote} There are not bad/good signals, there is no filter that will increase your 50% chances. You are reasoning with right/wrong mode, there is no right no wrong. This is how our minds have been educated since our childhood, this is the kind of education you have to get rid of. There is the possibility to move odds on your side but you will never find it unless you begin to think out of the boxes. The real problem is that the majority of traders do know nothing about market and still they have an opinion: I began to understand since the day I...
So if we can't beat the simple 50%/50% of the move being up or down. Does the edge lie in the probability of how far the movement will occur in any direction ?
The truth is hidden from you
  • #608
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:21pm Sep 27, 2017 1:21pm
I have this weird idea, that there are some close to holy grail results possible to achieve in trading. If one borrows some techniques from weather forecasting. Or more precisely something to do with magnitude and earth quakes.
The truth is hidden from you
  • #609
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:22pm Sep 27, 2017 1:22pm
Quoting TooSlow
{quote} Are you sure about that? {image} {image} {image} {image}
Recently range getting lower, but if we take all latest 10 years it would be about 120 pips in average.
  • #610
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:26pm Sep 27, 2017 1:26pm
Quoting TooSlow
{quote} Are you sure about that? {image} {image} {image} {image}
So on GBPUSD we have a 63.5% chance that the range will be less than 99. So in theory we have a 63.5% wining system if we trade reversals from the 99 range ?
The truth is hidden from you
  • #611
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:33pm Sep 27, 2017 1:33pm
Quoting MaxenshteinD
{quote} So on GBPUSD we have a 63.5% chance that the range will be less than 99. So in theory we have a 63.5% wining system if we trade reversals from the 99 range ?
No, after 99 range, with the same risk:reward(sl 5p, tp 5p or 10 pip, whatever) the win % will be 50:50(not included spread).
And your question means that 37.5% of all trades gets to entry point.
  • #612
  • Sep 27, 2017 1:47pm Sep 27, 2017 1:47pm
Quoting AntiCre
{quote} Although it would take too long to simulate 1 billion spins on my PC I simulated what CP wrote: prob <- NULL for (j in 1:1000) { success <- 0 number <- sample(c(-1,0,1),size=1,replace=T,prob=c(0.4864865,0.027027,0.4864865)) for (i in 1:10000) { sample <- sample(c(-1,0,1),size=1,replace=T,prob=c(0.4864865,0.027027,0.4864865)) if ((number > 0 && sample > 0) || (number < 0 && sample < 0)) success <- success + 1 if (sample == 0) number <- number * (-1) number <- number + sample } prob[j] <- success/10000 } hist(prob,n=25,col="darkorchid") The...
Nice job AntiCre. It is rare to see code posted to test hypotheses, and it was nice to see this code in a language that I'm conversant, R. I changed your code slightly to allow for testing different values for games and rounds (but probably not enough to warrant reposting). The repetitive probabilistic draw of -1, 0, 1 could be thought of as a random walk. Over the short term, random walks may wander arbitrarily far from the origin. But over some finite long term, they are assured to return to 0. Thus we would expect to see different results from your script based on whether we are using a smaller number of rounds or a larger number of rounds per game.

To test this I tested using 1000 games each time with 20, 200 and 2000 rounds for the three tests performed. The results are in the screenshot below with the top (20), middle (200) and bottom (2000) showing fairly different distributions relative to the all-important 50% line in cyan, which keeps moving to the right as the number of rounds increases. From this it is clear that using a smaller number of rounds per game improves the chances of a short-term lucky streak ending positive. Your picture shows 10000 rounds per game and it has even fewer positive outcomes than the bottom chart showing 2000 rounds per game.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Screenshot1.png Size: 22 KB


I'm wondering if what some have done is to combine this tendency for small sample size with random walks with a "per game" betting strategy. While it is unclear that any given game will be a winner, you could count on a certain percentage of the games having a positive outcome.

This still may not be enough for a gambler to go net positive, but it sure looks a lot better for the gambler than the picture you posted.
  • #613
  • Edited 2:58pm Sep 27, 2017 1:51pm | Edited 2:58pm
Quoting Copernicus
That's spot on and where the reality departs from the theory. That's exactly how Ed Thorpe exploited roulette with simple Newtonian physics. In fact every 'real' not 'virtual' roulette game has an exploitable bias.
Thorp is a genius. His book Beat The Dealer was one of many that I read when I was tinkering with blackjack during the 1990s.

There's an interesting article about Thorp and his buddy Claude Shannon here, which among other things states that they "also considered building a computer for blackjack, but Thorp says he could already count so well that it didn't seem worth the effort." Had roulette been beatable mathematically, surely they would have likewise taken the simpler, and less risky (in terms of being detected by casino personnel) math-based path also, as -- according to Thorp -- system players were "considered harmless because fools do that all the time to no avail".

Thus on the one hand, we have the system sellers telling us that roulette can be beaten using playing/betting systems that are solely math-based; and on the other, gents like Einstein, Thorp and the 'Wizard of Odds' saying that it's impossible.
  • #614
  • Sep 27, 2017 2:05pm Sep 27, 2017 2:05pm
If you consider the smaller range with in the daily range as the trading is done in tick chart, you can find more than 120 pip range for each day and I believe that is what CP mentioned....

Quoting michisuperfr
{quote} Yeah it's bullshit...None of the majors has an average daily range of 120 pips...
  • #615
  • Sep 27, 2017 2:12pm Sep 27, 2017 2:12pm
Quoting MaxenshteinD
{quote} So if we can't beat the simple 50%/50% of the move being up or down. Does the edge lie in the probability of how far the movement will occur in any direction ?
No, you cannot find an edge in what you cannot control: the only thing upon which you have control is risk.
Here is a simple experiment I made one year ago in august (for me august is a dead month, I do not trade real during that period in time, so I spent my time playing on a demo for the sake of my curiosity): they all are random trades, meaning that I neither looked at a chart, just price quotes, to help myself chosing the direction I tossed a coin; I only managed risk, however I ended the month with 2.7% profit
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Cattura.PNG Size: 25 KB
  • #616
  • Sep 27, 2017 2:32pm Sep 27, 2017 2:32pm
Quoting AntiCre
{quote} Really? It's still about the edge - the reference point ...
Yes you're correct that your analysis tests the reference point concept. And I think what my previous post shows relative to the reference point concept is that resetting the reference point more often is generally superior to using the same reference point over a large number of rounds even for independent events. This may not be universally true but for the tests I ran it was true.
  • #617
  • Edited 2:57pm Sep 27, 2017 2:46pm | Edited 2:57pm
Quoting FXEZ
{quote}This still may not be enough for a gambler to go net positive, but it sure looks a lot better for the gambler than the picture you posted.
That was exactly the point that I want to prove: The average outcome will be negative. But surely, the results will vary a lot if we play games of different lengths. Keep up good work (y)

BTW: What do you think about the use of two different reference points, where one is more responsive then the other (maybe using the more responsive one for exits and the less responsive one for entries?!
  • #618
  • Edited 7:19pm Sep 27, 2017 4:16pm | Edited 7:19pm
Quoting hanover
{quote} Thorp is a genius. His book Beat The Dealer was one of many that I read when I was tinkering with blackjack during the 1990s. There's an interesting article about Thorp and his buddy Claude Shannon here, which among other things states that they "also considered building a computer for blackjack, but Thorp says he could already count so well that it didn't seem...
It is the subtle difference between the reality and a theoretical model where you can find the walls of Jericho.....where it all can come crashing down and where you can find a definitive edge. To exploit it you may need to create a new theory accompanied by new mathematics as did Einstein in extending Newtonian mechanics using Grossmann, Reimann and Minkowski or by Newton when challenging the orthodoxy of the day in creating calculus without mathematical assistance for his Principia. For Thorp....he just knew his shit backwards and how to apply it...like any good engineer who turns the dreams into the reality. Shannon on the other hand....that is where I bow to a great mind. Mr Entropy. Thanks for the Thorp refs H :-)
  • #619
  • Sep 27, 2017 4:23pm Sep 27, 2017 4:23pm
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} It is the subtle difference between the reality and a theoretical model where you can find the walls of Jericho.....where it all can come crashing down and where you can find a definitive edge. To exploit it you nay need to create a new theory accompanied by new mathematics. Thanks for the Thorpe refs H :-)
Aha! It was flat earth back then.
  • #620
  • Edited 7:34pm Sep 27, 2017 4:28pm | Edited 7:34pm
Quoting skyway
{quote} Aha! It was flat earth back then.
Hehehe. Science is still working today. We still only have models of reality and no 'real' truth statements. What were supposed 'truth statements' in Newtons day turned out to be simply a narrow bounded condition of a broader more encompassing model that was applicable to a wider domain (namely the theories of special and general relativity)...and now they might even be supplanted with a more encompassing theory that merges the domains of quantum theory and relativity. Not wrong....but simply insufficient in their application to a wider domain of enquiry. That's the beauty of complex systems with emergent features. There is no Theory of Everything yet. ... and I hope there never will be.....otherwise it's going to be a dull Forum.

All theories are based on restrictive assumptions or axioms that are assumed to apply to the reality....and that's why anyone that makes a supposed 'truth statement' on this forum as a scientist would be forced to explain their assumptions and validate their hypothesis under peer review.....but you can get away with any crap statement made on this forum....as we apply the Laws of heresay, gullibility and big cohonas as opposed to the practices of sound scientific testing for falsifiability of observational evidence :-)
0 traders viewing now