The similarity system | Page 662 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Similarity: A Practical Approach 859 replies

Similarity Trading - The ZZBB Method 215 replies

Rainbow similarity 256 replies

Similarity Stuff 17 replies

Directional Similarity 0 replies

Attachments: The similarity system
Exit Attachments

The similarity system

  • #13,221
  • Dec 7, 2014 2:03pm Dec 7, 2014 2:03pm
Quoting maximinus
{quote} Good. Edit/ no, not Good.
How old are you? Time to grow up or give the keyboard back to your mom kid. lol
I read and watch to learn.
  • #13,222
  • Dec 7, 2014 2:06pm Dec 7, 2014 2:06pm
Quoting Greenspanke
{quote} Ok I said last post but this is what you are famous for. Get the last word in that is meaningless and do nothing but to excuse your behavior. I do not excuse multiple user names I reacted only to Kprsa's last post because of your incessant trolling. Why couldn't you just move on and leave the thread to those who care? what harm are they doing to you?
So are you the one who want to take over the thread after eurusdd/Piratepip etc… The thread is in the recycle bin and will stay. Do you understand what it means, no more 99.99999999% success trade calls. BS.
Don't be smart. Be rich.
  • #13,223
  • Dec 7, 2014 2:09pm Dec 7, 2014 2:09pm
Quoting Greenspanke
{quote} How old are you? Time to grow up or give the keyboard back to your mom kid. lol
Sorry can't answer. Privacy.
Don't be smart. Be rich.
  • #13,224
  • Dec 7, 2014 2:10pm Dec 7, 2014 2:10pm
Quoting maximinus
{quote} So are you the one who want to take over the thread after eurusdd/Piratepip etc… The thread is in the recycle bin and will stay. Do you understand what it means, no more 99.99999999% success trade calls. BS.
LMAO you think everyone who comes here look for trade calls like you do?
I read and watch to learn.
  • #13,225
  • Dec 7, 2014 2:13pm Dec 7, 2014 2:13pm
Quoting Greenspanke
{quote} LMAO you think everyone who comes here look for trade calls like you do?
No they came for buried tresor, holy grail and snake oil and they finish enraged in the recycle bin and kicked out by admin.
Don't be smart. Be rich.
  • #13,226
  • Dec 7, 2014 4:35pm Dec 7, 2014 4:35pm
this thread went down the shitter faster than obamas admin.
  • #13,227
  • Dec 7, 2014 5:04pm Dec 7, 2014 5:04pm
I'm really grateful to those members who contributed to the original topic of this thread by their valuable input, indicators, papers etc. Studying their posts and to a very small extent also contributing myself brought me insight in a simple, straightforward statistical methodology that can really give an edge if applied correctly. For me, this took place during the last ten days or so.

Again: thank you!

But now this thread has moved away so far and so fast from its original topic that I feel it's about time to leave, even before the garbage collectors' big car comes around the block to empty FF's recycle bin.

Maybe I'll have a look in the recycle bin from time to time to see whether this thread is still there. If there should be any serious, topic specific discussion be started in a new thread or a different forum, I'd be happy to receive a PM about it and start contributing.

Good luck to you all!

duplex
  • #13,228
  • Dec 7, 2014 7:56pm Dec 7, 2014 7:56pm
we will never know the real story behind all bla bla bla now my question his or are they FOREX FACTORY are they the one control our FOREX trading then if become near the HOLY GRAIL they ban you or put all in the bin ???????? are we living in a democracy free of speech or what, been controlled scrutiny on every move?
anywhere the one has been ban or deleted or they been working timeless day and night to give us a edge but been denied to do so, anywhere they will take they business somewhere else then make them more ego the fight FOREX FACTORY guess or will gain from been ban?????
  • #13,229
  • Dec 8, 2014 3:45am Dec 8, 2014 3:45am
Quoting duplex
I'm really grateful to those members who contributed to the original topic of this thread by their valuable input, indicators, papers etc. Studying their posts and to a very small extent also contributing myself brought me insight in a simple, straightforward statistical methodology that can really give an edge if applied correctly. For me, this took place during the last ten days or so. Again: thank you! But now this thread has moved away so far and so fast from its original topic that I feel it's about time to leave, even before the garbage collectors'...



I agree & May This Thread Rest In Peace.
  • #13,230
  • Dec 8, 2014 10:05am Dec 8, 2014 10:05am
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Screenshot1.png Size: 71 KB


Here are some examples of dissimilarity and divergence.

I hope this thread does not die - murdered by admin and senior trolls....
  • #13,231
  • Dec 10, 2014 1:51pm Dec 10, 2014 1:51pm
Quoting vspatrick
{image} Do I get it right ?
*see picture in attatchment*

Quoting Eurusdd
{quote} You are wrong. You do not know if that region is transient or recurrent yet because it is still forming. What you do though is wait. The moment price goes above that region, you can assume it is transient and then prices very close above it recurrent. Those prices are the ones you will expect a re-visit within at least one of the remaining h bars.
Hi guys,
I don't understand the answer of Eurusdd. Does anyone understand?
Quoting Eurusdd
{quote}The moment price goes above that region, you can assume it is transient
Shouldn't it be recurrent? If price now rises and goes above that red region, the red region is recurrent?
Thank you very much!
Attached Image
  • #13,232
  • Dec 10, 2014 10:05pm Dec 10, 2014 10:05pm
Quoting feuerTrader
{quote} *see picture in attatchment* {quote} Hi guys, I don't understand the answer of Eurusdd. Does anyone understand? {quote} Shouldn't it be recurrent? If price now rises and goes above that red region, the red region is recurrent? Thank you very much! {image}
Hi feuerTrader,

If I understand correctly, this post (#11481) from FX-Jay may be useful:

http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=7842544#post7842544

First we wait the yellow/red zone becomes transient zone, then If price goes above this transient zone, above the transient zone is high probability to be recurrent zone.

So we ready to sell above the transient zone.

Thank you,
  • #13,233
  • Dec 10, 2014 10:08pm Dec 10, 2014 10:08pm
Quoting feuerTrader
{quote} *see picture in attatchment* {quote} Hi guys, I don't understand the answer of Eurusdd. Does anyone understand? {quote} Shouldn't it be recurrent? If price now rises and goes above that red region, the red region is recurrent? Thank you very much! {image}
YES that red zone is recurrent prices if price goes above that region in(your pic) theory-But its all about h we choose and probability etc..GOOD LUCk
unlearning is difficult than learning-that is the key!!
  • #13,234
  • Dec 12, 2014 3:18pm Dec 12, 2014 3:18pm
Quoting infinitus
{quote} Let me ask you a question: with all the money the big corporations/banks have, with all the money they spent for HFT, quants, research etc., with all the very intelligent people they "bought", physicians, mathematicians, etc., people who, unlike most of the revoked members here, get their mathematics/statistics right: what do you think, how long it takes, until the newly developed algo fails again? Why are all of this brilliant people not able, to find something for which they can claim 99.999% probability (and which is tradeable)? What...

I don’t defend the “99,999% probability”. I know how they come up with these “probabilities” but there is a serious flaw with the calculations.

I defend the ideas presented here, because it can give people an edge. The only thing you can hear me say is this: ‘At certain times there is a good change that one thing will happen over another”. Many traders think like this, otherwise they don’t trade.

I don’t say that you say this but saying that the ideas presented here are BS is the same as saying that the ZigZag indicator does not repaint.
  • #13,235
  • Dec 12, 2014 3:21pm Dec 12, 2014 3:21pm
Quoting Lowphat
{quote} i think your misunderstanding at least IMHO what >90 is. its not the win percentage of your trades. at the most basic level its the realization of price having a high probability of hitting the same price in the future. for example take all prices now while the market is closed. how many of these prices do you think will get hit again in the next min/hour/day after the market opens when price moves away a few ticks. if you disagree with this i welcome an open dialog. {quote} although the name calling suggests you two may not be looking for...

Best post in the last 300 pages in my opinion. And it is that simple! Most prices are ‘H-recurrent’. So if we can find ‘H-transient’ prices, then we can assume that the possible ‘transient zone’ on the opposite side (which is not confirmed transient yet) is ‘H-recurrent’ because H-transient prices happen less often than H-recurrent prices. Nobody can deny that, if we look at the Freefox, Xixi, kprsa or Sciurius indicators. We can’t argue about that! The indicators make that fact visual. Even so, nobody can deny that the ZigZag indicator repaints. We can simply take advantage of that fact.
  • #13,236
  • Dec 12, 2014 3:55pm Dec 12, 2014 3:55pm
Quoting GU-Night
{quote} I don’t defend the “99,999% probability”. I know how they come up with these “probabilities” but there is a serious flaw with the calculations.
Wanna elaborate that with examples? Would be an interesting read, I think
  • #13,237
  • Dec 12, 2014 5:52pm Dec 12, 2014 5:52pm
Quoting candero
{quote} Wanna elaborate that with examples? Would be an interesting read, I think
It is not that interesting, actually. It is calculating the probability that different independent events all fail. Let us say; 80% of the possible problem bars are resolved within 20 bars. We have three independent (possible) 80% events. What is the change that they fail all three?

0.2 x 0.2 x 0.2 = 0.8%

The flaw in my opinion is that for example 70% of the possible problem bars are already resolved in 10 bars. So from my perspective it is better to speak about improbabilities. One thing is more improbable than another thing. Nevertheless, I don’t think it is wrong to look at it this way but it is not 99% change of fully resolving from one of the three events within H-bars. But I do think it is above 50%, and that is enough
  • #13,238
  • Dec 12, 2014 7:30pm Dec 12, 2014 7:30pm
Quoting GU-Night
{quote} It is not that interesting, actually. It is calculating the probability that different independent events all fail. Let us say; 80% of the possible problem bars are resolved within 20 bars. We have three independent (possible) 80% events. What is the change that they fail all three? 0.2 x 0.2 x 0.2 = 0.8% The flaw in my opinion is that for example 70% of the possible problem bars are already resolved in 10 bars. So from my perspective it is better to speak about improbabilities. One thing is more improbable than another thing. Nevertheless,...
Thank you for your reply! I see your point, Savero said in these lines as well. But why "think" if data can answer it, that's my current objective at the moment - to get probabilities at every bar and see how they stack together.
  • #13,239
  • Dec 13, 2014 2:43am Dec 13, 2014 2:43am
Quoting GU-Night
{quote} It is not that interesting, actually. It is calculating the probability that different independent events all fail. Let us say; 80% of the possible problem bars are resolved within 20 bars. We have three independent (possible) 80% events. What is the change that they fail all three? 0.2 x 0.2 x 0.2 = 0.8% The flaw in my opinion is that for example 70% of the possible problem bars are already resolved in 10 bars. So from my perspective it is better to speak about improbabilities. One thing is more improbable than another thing. Nevertheless,...


But when we do not calculate the chance of failure, but the chance of that it happens, it is:

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 51.2%


which may provide a tiny edge, but is not impressive at all


Is there a reason why people continue to calculate the probability of failure instead the probability of success, other the one that it looks much more better?
  • #13,240
  • Dec 13, 2014 3:48am Dec 13, 2014 3:48am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} But when we do not calculate the chance of failure, but the chance of that it happens, it is: 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 51.2% which may provide a tiny edge, but is not impressive at all Is there a reason why people continue to calculate the probability of failure instead the probability of success, other the one that it looks much more better?
It is already said that there is a serious flaw with this kind of calculations with this statistics. The same is true for the calculation for probability of success imo. Besides, not fully resolving within h-bars does not necessarily mean losing.


I don’t know why people do that, you can ask them.
2 traders viewing now