Disliked{quote} Hi Gregoryy, I personally feel that the probability of this (bold statement above) is less than 97%. It's more like 80%. Please see my post on page 14 if you want to see why. I think the 97% figure is dangerous and misleading to people who are new to trading and new to this concept. 97% sounds like something you could bet your house on. Even 80% sounds good. But please be aware of current issues before placing your trade, and don't bet too much.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Totally agree mate, we need to practice, and practice, and practice ..... until TRZ becomes a friend for us , before it is too late Thanks for your good posts mate. Edit: about this 3%, for example we have 1000 bars on chart, and we use it for calculation. We get 42 bars that really already finished Transient Bars (Not Resolved one). So, we get : (42/1000)*100% = 4.2% . Is this the way we calculate the TZ (by looking for the right "h" & "k") to get result around 3% ? Edit : Or from 1000 bars on chart we use for calculation,...Ignored
97/3 has a couple of meanings to it.
1) Take any price x on a chart and 97% of thoes prices will be revisited at some point in time. This is the premise of the recurrent nature of price. I really do not want to explain again why this alone is not tradable pratically at least.
2)This value can be easily obtained by using Kpsra indicators and adjusting the h value till you get the ~ read out of 97/3. This is not curve fitting variables to fit a model rather it is adjusting the data set presented to you such that you see data that historically 97/3. You are not limited to working with 97/3. I don't know the excat math of Kpsra indicator but 97/3 there mean only 3% of the PTZs you see turned out to be TZs
Edit : Mistake on my part. 3% of all bars you use for count become TZs
I want more brain power!
1