It's kind of curious...the war between price and indicators | Page 5 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Ratio between two indicators for example Rsi5 and Rsi10 0 replies

Looking for a nice and kind person to program a script 2 replies

Just Curious...Has anyone here consistantly made $$$ trading with Forex.com? 4 replies

Curious... 16 replies

Attachments: It's kind of curious...the war between price and indicators
Exit Attachments

It's kind of curious...the war between price and indicators

  • #81
  • Nov 26, 2010 2:40pm Nov 26, 2010 2:40pm
Quoting Dopey
Geez, I mention something simple and people start complicating matters....
can i have a pony instead of a vouch?

as it's just an arbitrary line designed to give bias where bias would otherwise not be... then you can put the line anywhere that suits oneself. the line will still give bias no matter where you put it, and over time it will alternate between 50/50 buy sell bias. you could simply use the london 8am for example. or your brokers chart 00:00. same same, just different.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #82
  • Nov 26, 2010 3:03pm Nov 26, 2010 3:03pm
Quoting nubcake
can i have a pony instead of a vouch?

as it's just an arbitrary line designed to give bias where bias would otherwise not be... then you can put the line anywhere that suits oneself. the line will still give bias no matter where you put it, and over time it will alternate between 50/50 buy sell bias. you could simply use the london 8am for example. or your brokers chart 00:00. same same, just different.
Here you go, you get two because they're small.
Attached Image
  • #83
  • Nov 26, 2010 3:27pm Nov 26, 2010 3:27pm
Quoting Dopey
Here you go, you get two because they're small.
YES! 8v's and 2 p's!

HEY MA I GOT TWO PAWNEES.

so i guess my answer was right
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #84
  • Nov 26, 2010 5:03pm Nov 26, 2010 5:03pm
Nice pony. Personally, where "the line" is depends on the pair.

Each pair generally has 3 major time periods:

- Time during which the base currency's session is open (and the other is closed)
- Time during which both sessions overlap
- Time during which the quote currency's session is open (and the other is closed)

For EURUSD for instance, euro session opens, then US session opens (overlap starts), then euro session closes (overlap ends), then US session closes, and so on.

So here, it makes sense to me to draw "the line" at the beginning of the euro session. That's (to me) where the trading day starts for the pair.
  • #85
  • Nov 27, 2010 1:08pm Nov 27, 2010 1:08pm
I'm back.
Haven't posted in a bit but I have been checking in on this thread here and again.

I went to do a bit of solo research with the light guided along the way by Eurotrash, John1, smjones, and Spearion whether they know it or not.

I've been looking into this theory which I came upon at Eurotrash's recommendation. If you go back to his post, he left a link to the T2W forums with a thread similar to ours.

John1 speaks in that thread in a fashion very similar to our own CrucialPoint. He advocates simplicity and does not seem to use charts. He promotes introspection as well. It was refreshing to see someone who thinks the same way and it was invigorating to find another source which was similar to the first but also difference. But now I'm just boring you, aren't I

John1 showed his hand in one post and after advocating simplicity, he shows this complex paradox!
But lo and behold after going over it many, many times and the help of some visual aids, it became very simple!

So. Lemme break this down for you guys if you were looking for a summary:
The Parrondo Paradox works like this. There's two games. Playing either game alone explicitly, you will lose all your money (this is assuming you bet money). In other words, both games have negative expectancies. Why would you play either, right? Here's the paradox. If you played one, switched to the other, played that, switched, and so on, you will see a PROFIT. That's insane right? Two losing games and all you have to do is switch them off and you'll win?
What's even crazier, it doesn't have to be an ABABABA switching sequence. It can be completely random switches. It can go ABBAAAABABB and that'll be a profit too.

It's due to this thing called "the ratchet effect". Not like those ratchets that you turn bolts with. Have you ever taken a good look at car jacks that lift cars up? It has like a saw-tooth edge. Like this: /_ It's like a nose shaped slant. Anyways. The slant part allows you to move in on direction when you crank on the level and the flat part prevents movement downwards.

Now you've got to be utterly confused. No worries, I got lost here too. The big question is "Okay but there's got to be upwards movement at some point". Well yeah what I didn't realize at first is that there can be upwards movement without having a positive expectancy. How could I forget? I used to be a scalper. Didn't work out too well. Why? 1:2 RRRs. 1:2 let me grab quick pips and leave room for me to trade with the trend even if my entry was off but even then, my stop would get hit a third of the time which is just enough for me to barely breakeven.

So there's your up movement for ya. Now this is still probably an odd concept. How can changing to the other negative expectancy change the risk level of the 1:2 trade?
Go back to the visual aid link up there. The constantly down-moving ratchet is a 1:1 RRR trade. The negative expectancy comes from the spread... existing.
So can you see it? The high win-ratio trade but with 1:2 RRR will more often than not hit its target and the ratchet's upward movement will most likely happen. But in the case of a loss, the 1:1 will catch it and negate the downwards movement. Just like the car jack or the visual except the ball or car is our account balances and the distance they go is... lots higher

Now I had some trouble putting this into practice so I googled "pararrondo paradox forex"
And what's the first place it leads me? Right back home to FF. To three threads here by smjones, here by Spearion, and here by Gambler180.
I'm going to get Gambler's out of the way quick because it's not all that relevant. But it seems the EA he has alternates buy and sell signals and backtests profitable... sometimes...
I just thought that it was interesting to see a strategy that alternated something simple to get profit.

But now onto the meaty bits!
The thread by smjones is about an semi-EA based on the paradox. Now here's a disclaimer about the paradox. A few papers have been written about how it could not be applied to any financial market and it would be illogical. That's why smjones' semi-EA is a modified version of the paradox. Similar when it comes to the idea but just a bit different so it seems.
I plan to read it a couple more times over to understand it better but what it obvious is that he came out in profit and what's better? Less than 2% drawdown. Who else is giddy with excitement?
A system like this was based on the paradox and so was John1's system and he apparently trades without charts.
Going to keep looking into this and figure out to apply it to the no past price or charts idea.

As for Spearion, he seemed to try to better smjones' system (Is that even possible? ) but I got caught up in all the theoretical stuff and math so I'll need to make a revisit there.

This heavily deviates from the whole simple thing John1 and CrucialPoint advocate... or maybe I'm just not seeing it... or maybe I'm making it more complicated up in my head than it really is. Either way, it feels good to learn something new and cool like this even if I'm one step off the path. "One step out of line is still one step in the right direction" ~ Four Year Strong.
I know that doesn't always play true but it is my favorite band afterall.

So!
I hope this sparked something new.
I'm personally going to see into this matter and I'm going to try and make it as simple as I can and then make a system and from then on it's all Disciple and Psychology.

Hope I'm not the only one in for the ride.

Let me know what you guys think!
  • #86
  • Nov 27, 2010 2:36pm Nov 27, 2010 2:36pm
At first sight I'm skeptical. If I understand it correctly, the paradox is based on game number 2 consisting of two individual games, one with a strong negative expectancy and one with a strong positive expectancy.
The problem with financial markets is that the expectancy tends to be around .96 for any system when accounting for transaction costs. Finding a stronger negative expectancy is just as hard as finding a positive one, as both require a filtering of randomness.

However, I will follow your journey with interest.
The nail that sticks out gets hammered back in
  • #87
  • Nov 27, 2010 2:50pm Nov 27, 2010 2:50pm
Quoting Noloqy
At first sight I'm skeptical. If I understand it correctly, the paradox is based on game number 2 consisting of two individual games, one with a strong negative expectancy and one with a strong positive expectancy.
The problem with financial markets is that the expectancy tends to be around .96 for any system when accounting for transaction costs. Finding a stronger negative expectancy is just as hard as finding a positive one, as both require a filtering of randomness.

However, I will follow your journey with interest.
In game two, there's two subgames. You are spot on. B1 has a high positive expectancy and B2 has a low negative expectancy.
But the thing is, there's no rule that says B1 can't be the low expectancy and B2 has the high expectancy.

I look at it like two systems. B1 works in... for argument's sake... a trending market. B2 works in a ranging market. One will have a better expectancy than the other depending on the market and at the same time, we don't have to worry about the future market. We're coverin' all bases here :]

That's how I believe it works up in my noggin'.

Going over smjones' material should turn on some more light bulbs for me.
I feel like all the answers are right in front of me and I need to just open my eyes.
  • #88
  • Nov 27, 2010 3:05pm Nov 27, 2010 3:05pm
To promote discussion and to bump the thread...

The two glaring weaknesses I see with this approach are presented
here from Spearion's thread-
Quoting rangebound
For a positive expectancy to occur you must employ a game (in the PP example B2) that has a winning expectancy of greater than 67%. Just tinkering with the win rates for 20 minutes will confirm this.

Once this is realized the primary problem that needs solving is defining a trade setup that has >= 67% chance of winning over the long term.

If this is achieved then it should be quickly apparent that it would be futile to place a trade with a 49% win rate, and that you could be certified clinically insane to place a trade with only a 10% chance...
and

smjones quote from his thread-

"There is a difference in the trades I am making from the pure Parrando model in that, the probabilities cannot be established with complete accuracy, because of the nature of traded markets. So, they are an approximation of several trades/games played over several sessions of the sets.

This could all change in a heart beat, because markets are dynamic."

It would be interesting to ask smjones why he asked for the thread to be extracted to the Recycle Bin... he has been active on the Forums recently. Perhaps he can give us more insight. His posts have always been informative.
  • #89
  • Nov 27, 2010 4:04pm Nov 27, 2010 4:04pm
Quoting Intu
To promote discussion and to bump the thread...

The two glaring weaknesses I see with this approach are presented
here from Spearion's thread-


and

smjones quote from his thread-

"There is a difference in the trades I am making from the pure Parrando model in that, the probabilities cannot be established with complete accuracy, because of the nature of traded markets. So, they are an approximation of several trades/games played over several sessions of the sets.

This could all change in a heart beat, because markets......
For Spearion, he responds to rangebound in the sequential post.

Quoting Spearion
Rangebound
yes you are correct when thinking about the classical PP setup. But with regards to trading, winning rates have nothing to do with the equity side of PP, it will only affect the step curve (ie Chart 1 in my previous posts).

If anyone thinks of applying PP and using their actual equity for the mod relationship for B1 and B2 then good luck. If you use your equity for the mod calc then B1 would almost never be used and B2 (which is usually the 70%+ game) would always be used.

In my sim the steps and equity are always split and tracked...
Looks like win rates only affect the step curve and not the equity itself. They are separated. If we were using equity directly in the model, of course you would only use B2. It's got a high win-rate and anyone who can put down a little discipline and money management can profit (y'know until the market changes conditions or whatever). But it only affect the step curve lucky for us.

As for the second part, I'm not so sure. I'm still mulling this over myself. My Saturday night is going to begin soon so I won't get much done tonight. But the ol' brain needs a rester here and there.

If I'm lucky, maybe I will establish some kind of contact with smjones and find out something for everyone reading.
I agree, though. The man's a genius.
I, personally, need to do more research on the paradox. I think that's what I should do or Spearion and smjones' threads will be more difficult to process than need be. (Dude, I don't even know what modus means...) But more reading on modus, steps vs equity, and a better understanding of this stuff can't hurt. I can't have an intelligent discussion nor find the answers I'm looking for if I don't have the firmest grasp on this myself

(I can't shake this sinking feeling that we're making it more complicated than it has to be. The only little hope I have is that once all is understood, things will be super simple and we'll all be like "OHH! It's SO simple!" The only little hope that makes me chase down what seems like a brilliant trading strategy.)

I'll be back, more informed than the the last time I posted.

Thanks for always provoking quality thoughts, Intu.
And you too Noloqy. How could I forget! xD

Here's to hoping this is something we've been looking for!
And here's to tonight. Cheers!
  • #90
  • Nov 27, 2010 4:07pm Nov 27, 2010 4:07pm
I'm familiar with Parrondo's Paradox.

You can't really use it to create an edge in trading because:

1) As already mentioned, there are no real/fixed probabilities regarding future outcomes only estimations at best (due to the nature of the markets).

2) You will still need a game with positive expectancy. If you had that then you wouldn't need Parrondo's Paradox to create an edge, you would already have one.
  • #91
  • Nov 27, 2010 4:20pm Nov 27, 2010 4:20pm
Quoting Marv
I'm familiar with Parrondo's Paradox.

You can't really use it to create an edge in trading because:

1) As already mentioned, there are no real/fixed probabilities regarding future outcomes (only estimations) due to the nature of the markets.

2) You will still need a game with positive expectancy. If you had that then you wouldn't need Parrondo's Paradox to create an edge, you would already have one.
Yes as has been mentioned by Intu in reference to rangebound's post.

1.) That's why I believe B1 and B2 work as I think they do. I may be completely off base, I'm sure but I think B1 has certain expectations in a certain market and B2 has the same. In one market, B1 may be great and B2 may be small and vice versa for a different market. I'm not entirely sure and I want to go over these posts and articles as much as I can to figure it out.
According to smjones, the pure Parrondo model could never work as confirmed by Spearion and that's why smjones uses a modified version.
I'm going to look into this.

2.)
Quote
Games A and B1 can low hit rates but they can also have positive expectancies whilst B2 might a 70%+ hit rate but have a negative expectancy. The aim of this thread to try mixing up the games' expectancies, hitrates and sequences because definitely the classic PP will not work in trading.

So I guess you can have both a negative expectancy but have a high hit rate.
Possibly explained by something like 1:4 RRR in trend trading. You have a lot of wiggle room because you won't get spotted out so easily and your TP is relatively small but in your drawdown periods... well that negative expectancy kinda jumps out at ya

There of course exists systems that go like 70%+ with 2:1 RRR. Money Management deters drawdown periods pretty well.

I guess what the paradox goes for is blocking drawdown using the style itself. Now wouldn't that be something

Like I said, I have a lot more research to do but everyone's responses are extremely helpful in finding answers.

You can't find solutions without pointing out problems so thank you very much.
  • #92
  • Nov 27, 2010 4:53pm Nov 27, 2010 4:53pm
Just wanted to add this:

I'm not sure what "simple thing" you're looking for exactly.

The market is a fairly complex and dynamic system, you can't beat it with just a simple trading rule or set of simple rules. In my opinion, it is always better to seek to expand our minds to fit the market for what it truly is instead of trying to narrow it down to fit our minds.

I'm highly skeptical about those who come speaking in riddles and claiming that they can beat the markets with one or a few simple trading rules that everybody else is missing. Trading doesn't work that way, never did, never will. I don't know (or care) about CrucialPoint's personal profitability, but I've looked at his thread (the one with the clues) and there is nothing in it that will likely ever give or lead the reader to a real quantifiable edge. My advice is don't waste your time trying to solve any of such riddles, follow your own path instead. Create your own trading philosophy and framework and keep updating/improving it each day until you have an edge.
  • #93
  • Nov 27, 2010 8:39pm Nov 27, 2010 8:39pm
Quoting vx13
Dude, I don't even know what modus means...) But more reading on modus, steps vs equity, and a better understanding of this stuff can't hurt. I can't have an intelligent discussion nor find the answers I'm looking for if I don't have the firmest grasp on this myself
i think you mean modulus... quite simply modulus is normally referring to the remainder in division. in this context they are referring to when it is zero, as in, some number divided by another number has no remainder, therefore, is a simple multiple of that number. e.g. using m=3, 3 and 6 and 9 and 12 and 15 and so on would all trigger the alternate procedure to be employed.

i believe you guys may be applying the concept of parrondo incorrectly which is why you are getting tripped-up and can't seem to fit it to work. i'm no mathematician, so grain of salt. either way this has lead to some fascinating reading into paradoxes of all kinds that i hadn't heard of.

cool stuff whether useful or not.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #94
  • Nov 28, 2010 5:09am Nov 28, 2010 5:09am
Don't waste your time trying to make the parrondo paradox work in trading. It won't work. If it were possible then there would be an EA for it and it would be the holy grail by definition. Every hedge fund, every bank every trader would use it and (by definition) win. They would all win. This is impossible. q.e.d.

The thread is 2 years old and nobody has ever succeeded in applying it to forex (because it can't be done, you can't beat the market without an edge and MM is not an edge). The thread starter himself put this thread into the recycle bin, probably because it was only an April fools joke. Don't waste your time.
  • #95
  • Nov 28, 2010 5:33am Nov 28, 2010 5:33am
Quoting 7bit
Don't waste your time trying to make the parrondo paradox work in trading. It won't work. If it were possible then there would be an EA for it and it would be the holy grail by definition. Every hedge fund, every bank every trader would use it and (by definition) win. They would all win. This is impossible. q.e.d.

The thread is 2 years old and nobody has ever succeeded in applying it to forex (because it can't be done, you can't beat the market without an edge and MM is not an edge). The thread starter himself put this thread into the recycle...
any discussion that is new and not the same old 'support / resistance, fibofarty, floating upside reverse noodle' and promotes fresh thinking in this stale environment is A OK by me. clearly there is a better way to do it than the same old boring poopoo, and one step in the wrong direction might still be one step in the right direction.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #96
  • Nov 28, 2010 8:23am Nov 28, 2010 8:23am
Quoting CrucialPoint
Okay, I'll spoon feed this one, but you guys will have to do the work yourself:

http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost.php?p=3394110&postcount=11

http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...&postcount=109
This has nothing to do with price history nor historical data. This apply to every TF. But for simplicity, I want you to pull up any daily, weekly or a monthly chart. Look at the very last candlestick and understand this observation. Don't look the history, just the last candle.

And then apply this theory to the future candlesticks without any historical analysis. I can guarantee you it will be 100% all of the time. I also dare you to prove me wrong on this.


I think what crucial point is saying is that you can trade price with only reference to the last bar ie if daily bar is down then price will continue down until the opening price of subsequent bars is breached.

For example
First day down, second day opens and open price of first day acts as resistance, price goes down, third day goes up, third days close is above second days open, price is supported at second days open. Now price will need to get above first days open, as this will act as resistance and so on
Basically this is using the opens and closes as s/r.

Hopefully crucial point will let us know if this correct?

I have enclosed a jpeg of this to illustrate and the confusion for the trader in using price or just a couple of ma's. (it's very difficult to use both)

Comments welcome

Thanks J
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: example.jpg Size: 131 KB
  • #97
  • Nov 28, 2010 1:45pm Nov 28, 2010 1:45pm
Quoting nubcake
one step in the wrong direction might still be one step in the right direction.
The keyword here is "might". Parrondo's Paradox applied to forex and/or gambling is not one of those cases (7bit knows what he's talking about).

I believe that misinformation is worse than no information at all. The reason being that misinformation/miseducation/"stepping in the wrong direction" may actually distract you from any real valuable information and, therefore, making it in this business.

Unsurprisingly, there is much more misinformation available to the public than its opposite (at least from what I see).
  • #98
  • Nov 28, 2010 4:30pm Nov 28, 2010 4:30pm
Quoting Marv
The keyword here is "might". Parrondo's Paradox applied to forex and/or gambling is not one of those cases (7bit knows what he's talking about).

I believe that misinformation is worse than no information at all. The reason being that misinformation/miseducation/"stepping in the wrong direction" may actually distract you from any real valuable information and, therefore, making it in this business.

Unsurprisingly, there is much more misinformation available to the public than its opposite (at least from what I see).
that's why i said "might"

if nothing else it has given me something to explore over the weekend instead of having the same old dull ideas being flogged to death. i'd rather have a massive thread about parrando go absolutely nowhere, than another goddamn fibonacci thread and all it's sheeples touting complete nonsense.

it's all good.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #99
  • Nov 28, 2010 4:49pm Nov 28, 2010 4:49pm
this is just irritating me so i will just come out and say it...

you guys might have already realised this, or put it out of your mind and moved-on, but, the issues brought up 2 years ago by Spearion towards SMJones (and 1 page back by Marv) is that if you have a strategy that gives you the fabled "positive expectancy" then you do not require any of this sleight of hand nonsense.

the problem! (to my understanding of parrando) at NO point do you require a "positive expectancy" game in the mix. as it reads to me it requires that you have a strategy with a HIGHER PROBABILITY of winning, not positive expectancy.

go back to the same old newbie thought process about "if i am almost break-even on a 1:1 r:r then surely i will be rolling in money if i simply change to a 1:2 r:r as i will win twice as much as i lose!!! yay!". as anyone who has spent more than 2 seconds thinking about this without dollars in their eyes understands that as soon as you alter the risk : reward ratio you are also altering the probabilities of the risk vs reward being hit. they are interlinked.

parrando (again, as i understand it) says at the very beginning that this is about NEGATIVE expectancy games, and then from there doesn't mention it again and simply discusses that each "game" have various ratios of PROBABILITY, not expectancy. all 3 setups are negative expectancy, it's just the distribution of wins versus losses that differs between each one. each one on it's own will fail you. combining a mix of b1 and b2 will fail you, as it is simply a skewing of the 50:50 setup... nothing more.

let me ask you this : if i have a setup that simply has a r:r of 1:9 minus spread but has the probability of being a win only 10% of the time (let's call this game b1, just for no reason at all), then what is the reverse (let's call this game b2, again for no reason at all *cough*)? also, how does this setup and it's reverse differ from a 50 : 50 minus spread setup? to me it has zero difference except the ratio of wins to losses. expectancy is exactly the same!

keep that in mind. negative expectancy, as i said, is mentioned at the beginning and is the whole premise of the entire paradox. 2 games, individually, will bleed money over time. combine the two in a particular order and the distribution of wins vs losses within the mix will be such that it resists the bleeding effect and will in fact produce profits.

where you guys will get caught applying all of this is working-out how to set this up so that the actual $ amounts aren't skewed along with the r:r setups. a 10 pip tp versus 100 pip sl on its own will not yield an equal dollar win versus loss... and this is where you need to put your thinking caps on!

or, i have understood it all wrong and need more sleep.

just some things to think about that might push you in the right direction instead of spinning in circles. enjoy
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #100
  • Nov 28, 2010 5:58pm Nov 28, 2010 5:58pm
Quoting Marv
Just wanted to add this:

I'm not sure what "simple thing" you're looking for exactly. http://cdn.forexfactory.com/images/s.../yim/happy.gif

The market is a fairly complex and dynamic system, you can't beat it with just a simple trading rule or set of simple rules. In my opinion, it is always better to seek to expand our minds to fit the market for what it truly is instead of trying to narrow it down to fit our minds.

I'm highly...
Marv, I'm going to be honest with you. I have no freakin' clue in the entire world xD

I was raised on television. I was programmed to believe that mystical, cryptic-speaking, wise figures were ones you should look to to learn. Like... Yoda or Tito from Rocket Power or... Mr. Miyagi. He doesn't tell you what I need to wax on, wax off for but sooner or later I will see exactly what he meant.

I'm optimistically hoping I can wrap my head around this whole complex paradox and once it all clicks everything will be so very simple.

But you advice is sound and I thank you for it.

Quoting nubcake
i think you mean modulus... quite simply modulus is normally referring to the remainder in division. in this context they are referring to when it is zero, as in, some number divided by another number has no remainder, therefore, is a simple multiple of that number. e.g. using m=3, 3 and 6 and 9 and 12 and 15 and so on would all trigger the alternate procedure to be employed.

i believe you guys may be applying the concept of parrondo incorrectly which is why you are getting tripped-up and can't seem to fit it to work. i'm no mathematician, so grain...
Ah! You're a life-saver, nubcake.
And yeah I definitely agree. A lot of people are trying to apply a pure Parrondo Paradox which has been stated several times on this thread and others that that is impossible. But it seems that a modified paradox works. I'm still trying to break it down.

And yeah I feel the same. Either way it's kinda cool to know this stuff.

Quoting 7bit
Don't waste your time trying to make the parrondo paradox work in trading. It won't work. If it were possible then there would be an EA for it and it would be the holy grail by definition. Every hedge fund, every bank every trader would use it and (by definition) win. They would all win. This is impossible. q.e.d.

The thread is 2 years old and nobody has ever succeeded in applying it to forex (because it can't be done, you can't beat the market without an edge and MM is not an edge). The thread starter himself put this thread into the recycle...
Well smjones had a semi-EA and it nearly had no drawdown.

And y'know sometimes in this game there doesn't feel like there are many frontiers left but maybe there is. In life sometimes it looks like there's not a whole lot of things an entrepreneur can do in an original sense but new ideas exist.

Maybe people just haven't really delved deep enough or people are too focused on other ways of trading or who knows. I'm not saying you're wrong because you may be right and even the best of the best have tried the paradox and it didn't work.
I'm one who learns the hard way. I'm kind of empiricist in that sense.

And smjones seemed to profit in the live forward test while going through many different phases of the market.

The games and subgames of the paradox have an "edge" inside each of them if I'm not mistaken and I don't see how it was a joke. It seemed like an astounding effort with great results. I don't know. I don't know him personally so I can never be too sure.

Good points, though. I feel like it can work but you seem extremely experienced. It's all a journey, right? Just one mistake or failure to the next? Either one day I'll be trading a Parrondo system or I'll be trading another and look back and see how dumb I was.

I just know there only one way I want to find out.

Thanks again, 7bit

Quoting nubcake
any discussion that is new and not the same old 'support / resistance, fibofarty, floating upside reverse noodle' and promotes fresh thinking in this stale environment is A OK by me. clearly there is a better way to do it than the same old boring poopoo, and one step in the wrong direction might still be one step in the right direction.
I believe the line goes "One step out of line is still one step in the right direction"
Inserted Video


Thanks for still supporting the cause!

Quoting slimcat
This has nothing to do with price history nor historical data. This apply to every TF. But for simplicity, I want you to pull up any daily, weekly or a monthly chart. Look at the very last candlestick and understand this observation. Don't look the history, just the last candle.

And then apply this theory to the future candlesticks without any historical analysis. I can guarantee you it will be 100% all of the time. I also dare you to prove me wrong on this.


I think what crucial point is saying is that you can trade price with only reference...
Y'know, slimcat, that's pretty awesome stuff there. I'm going to look into that as well. I like it in theory.

I'm open to any idea still that involve no price history. I know this uses a candle or two back but that's close enough for me really.

Thanks for this!

Quoting nubcake
this is just irritating me so i will just come out and say it...

you guys might have already realised this, or put it out of your mind and moved-on, but, the issues brought up 2 years ago by Spearion towards SMJones (and 1 page back by Marv) is that if you have a strategy that gives you the fabled "positive expectancy" then you do not require any of this sleight of hand nonsense.

the problem! (to my understanding of parrando) at NO point do you require a "positive expectancy" game in the mix. as it reads to me it requires that you have a strategy...


Right, right I've said things along similar lines but nothing that summarizes it so well and so elegantly so thank you very much for channeling my thoughts for me, nubcake.

In your statement, even if the game evens out to 50:50, there is still game A to consider.

To me I think instead of low-prob and positive expectancy balanced with high-prob and negative expectancy, it's more like they compliment each other it such a way that makes a kind of magical positive expectancy high-prob market-killer. And then there's game A...

But your post seems more spot on to me than anything else and you simplify it well.

I still believe in the paradox but not trading it in a pure sense. In a mod sense like smjones and John1.

Thanks again. You are a great contributor and a contribution to the thread

And a post #100 update:
Looks like on the pole indies and price are tied sorta. Price is up for now but those two have been switching off first place for awhile now. Indies have been in first now and then and they've never been more than two votes from each other. Interesting stuff. No price past has been down there for awhile now but it's always been about half of what the indies and price votes are. Just somethings that needed to be noticed.
0 traders viewing now