Technical Analysis Fallacy | Page 2773 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

The Ultimate Fallacy in Technical Analysis 99 replies

"Technical Analysis Fallacy" thread people, I need your help 54 replies

Technical Analysis Fallacy Redux 23 replies

Statistical analysis fallacy 33 replies

Attachments: Technical Analysis Fallacy
Exit Attachments

Technical Analysis Fallacy

  • #55,441
  • Aug 31, 2016 11:29pm Aug 31, 2016 11:29pm
Quoting CookieMonsta
{quote} ok, to shift fulcrum balance, you need at least more than 0.167 to shift the balance. brain ---------- fulcrum ----------- brain 1x 0.5 0.5 1x brain-----fulcrum------------------ brain 2x a b 1x a+b = 1 b = 1 - a 2x * a = b * 1x 2x * a = (1 - a ) * 1x 2x a = 1x - 1x a 3x a = 1x a = 1/3 or 0.333 shift = 0.5 - 0.333 = 0.167
eeeer how does this answer the question?
what was my question?

regards
  • #55,442
  • Aug 31, 2016 11:35pm Aug 31, 2016 11:35pm
No i don't thinking about size only
"his troops are harden in battle and terrain is on his side"

You get me wrong. But thank you for comment " size and strategic placement".

he eventualy win coz in death ground every one of his soldier fights like 10 I think Cezar make the same trick once.
  • #55,443
  • Edited 2:05am Sep 1, 2016 1:53am | Edited 2:05am
hahahaha he missed.
we are still alive.
He must work on his aim la.
missed.
aim better next time.

http://www.seeker.com/newfound-aster...993011590.html


eeeeer David?
Inserted Video


regards
  • #55,444
  • Edited 5:35am Sep 1, 2016 4:07am | Edited 5:35am
Quoting fti
{quote} eeeer how does this answer the question? what was my question? regards
Your question was what percentage to shift the fulcrum if brain size was doubled. So I took it to me that before, brain size was 1x so if brain size is doubled, and only the fulcrum position is to be changed, then the fulcrum must move in relation to the old point to the new point by 0.167 to be in balance again. The reason I draw the picture was to illustrate what I am perceive to be solving, so is my understanding of the question right?
  • #55,445
  • Edited 1:09pm Sep 1, 2016 9:33am | Edited 1:09pm
Quoting CookieMonsta
{quote} Your question was what percentage to shift the fulcrum if brain size was doubled. So I took it to me that before, brain size was 1x so if brain size is doubled, and only the fulcrum position is to be changed, then the fulcrum must move in relation to the old point to the new point by 0.167 to be in balance again. The reason I draw the picture was to illustrate what I am perceive to be solving, so is my understanding of the question right?
no , cookie 0.167 is wrong. For a martingale, your fulcrum shift is very wrong.


regards
  • #55,446
  • Sep 1, 2016 10:00am Sep 1, 2016 10:00am
Quoting fti
{quote} no , cookie 0.167 is wrong. For a martingale, your fulcrum shift is very wrong. regards
hi fti, why do you say it is wrong? based on principles of moments, shifting by 16.7% of the full length of the lever and towards the heavier load is a correct calculation.


unless, you were not referring to the balancing of load on both ends.
THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental
  • #55,447
  • Edited 10:49am Sep 1, 2016 10:05am | Edited 10:49am
Quoting Jacque
{quote} hi fti, why do you say it is wrong? based on principles of moments, shifting by 16.7% of the full length of the lever and towards the heavier load is a correct calculation. unless, you were not referring to the balancing of load on both ends.
ahhh yes 16.7% is correct.
the answer you gave is wrong.

16.7% is the ?????? ????.
in fact itis 16.1833333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
otherwise nobalance.
in the sxpansion, when does the mean martingales,and why?
what is the gradient of an arch? what is the gradient of phi?what is the gradient of the contango and backwardation arch

cannot find a good clip.
anyway this will do, i hope.

Inserted Video


Inserted Video

regards
  • #55,448
  • Edited 10:37am Sep 1, 2016 10:14am | Edited 10:37am
Quoting fti
{quote} ahhh yes 16.7% is correct. the answer you gave is wrong. 16.7% is the ?????? ????. regards
apart from what i have mentioned, i don't know what to make of this further.

i am sure we are on the subject of balancing 2 loads with a lever. so, no, i don't see why it should be 16.183% to get the loads to balance out each other at 2x and 1x on each ends.

if you insist on 16.183%, then i must be off way on what you were intending to discuss.
THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental
  • #55,449
  • Edited 11:02am Sep 1, 2016 10:36am | Edited 11:02am
  • #55,450
  • Sep 1, 2016 10:43am Sep 1, 2016 10:43am
Inserted Video
THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental
  • #55,451
  • Edited 11:20am Sep 1, 2016 11:06am | Edited 11:20am
Quoting fti
{quote} no , cookie 0.167 is wrong. For a martingale, your fulcrum shift is very wrong. regards maybe ypu drank too much? {image}
I think I get a little, Is that why your skew is fibo skew? You were not looking at just 1 increment, you factoring 2nd order rate of change, that is the gamma of the skew, so if your seq goes infinite, you got stable progression, while just a little off from that, the terms originally not so visible start to snowball and there is some acceleration to be much we closer to current price than originally thought, so more aggressive skew than 0.1618 has more latent acceleration, and that accelerates the average price skewing function.

But the acceleration, I did think about it, and kind of intended for it in the first place, because of the nature of doing quick attacks, so is fast in fast out, and no staying long in leveraged state.

I remember you once mentioned before fibo skew is a safer skew to skew price, and as evident in your attack and rescue mo, you were not just factoring in position sizing, but also how average price position progression as you add and move with current price.
  • #55,452
  • Sep 1, 2016 12:08pm Sep 1, 2016 12:08pm
the stability,not in the gamma dimension.

regards
  • #55,453
  • Sep 1, 2016 5:53pm Sep 1, 2016 5:53pm
Quoting fti
the stability,not in the gamma dimension. regards
Ic, wah, this one is deep need think more but thx for pointing out.
  • #55,454
  • Sep 1, 2016 7:17pm Sep 1, 2016 7:17pm
Quoting fti
the stability,not in the gamma dimension. regards
The stability is in the shifting in price average position with respect to the various volatility setting? By nature of being able to skew price after the fact, implies you need handle multiple transitions of volatility from low volatility to high volatility and back, which is trend and terrain.
  • #55,455
  • Sep 1, 2016 7:46pm Sep 1, 2016 7:46pm
Fun thing

The word "lever" entered English about 1300 from Old French, in which the word was levier. This sprang from the stem of the verb lever, meaning "to raise". The verb, in turn, goes back to the Latin levare, itself from the adjective levis, meaning "light" (as in "not heavy"). The word's ultimate origin is the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) stem legwh-, meaning "light", "easy" or "nimble", among other things. The PIE stem also gave rise to the English word "light".
  • #55,456
  • Sep 1, 2016 7:48pm Sep 1, 2016 7:48pm
Attached Image







Quoting fti
when 2 walk into ring, only 1 leaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVzqNH33BHA
  • #55,457
  • Edited Sep 2, 2016 3:22am Sep 1, 2016 9:51pm | Edited Sep 2, 2016 3:22am
Quoting K40
{image} {quote}
eeeer
Attached Image
  • #55,458
  • Sep 2, 2016 9:28am Sep 2, 2016 9:28am
Quoting fti
{quote} eeeer {image}

today, after NFP, while trading, I was reading an earlier post of yours, maybe you can remember. It was one of the eventful battles.
You mention, "if I cannot trade such bullish action, how can I be called a technical analyst"
kept ringing in my head, then it occur, to just continue follow the chart, when bull stay bull, listen to chart, ask can buy? and steady as she goes


rgds


wish i could partake more in the mathematical equation, but at moment, i got my energy spent on chart work, for my foundation work. will ponder when i can, tend to work better with concepts and exploded view, and evolution
Fall in love with the process, and the outcome takes care of itself.
  • #55,459
  • Edited Sep 3, 2016 3:00am Sep 2, 2016 7:26pm | Edited Sep 3, 2016 3:00am
Quoting RelaxRay
{quote} today, after NFP, while trading, I was reading an earlier post of yours, maybe you can remember. It was one of the eventful battles. You mention, "if I cannot trade such bullish action, how can I be called a technical analyst" kept ringing in my head, then it occur, to just continue follow the chart, when bull stay bull, listen to chart, ask can buy? and steady as she goes rgds wish i could partake more in the mathematical equation, but at moment, i got my energy spent on chart work, for my foundation work. will ponder when i can, tend to...
Ahhh, i longtime no riding the wind in my face. NFP battle.
nice?
wah lucky you, gets whole body alive and ringing.
steady as she goes, my friend. ride the wind.
What a rush?huh? yeeeeeha
i still can feel those days.


Inserted Video

regards

don't worry about the maths.
is for corp peeps show thay know how to tweek the macchinery,
even for cookie i don't want to show too much.
different corps have different risk and managing profile.
not every one runs things the same way.
and is probably create lots conflicts and personality clashes when peeps not work the way their bosses want things to be like.
if he brings my stuff to his office, his boss may want to know who this fti is.
cookie is working for him not fti.

my stuff is just for him , brush up some aspects for his personal skills.
so don't worry about it. just some professional courtesy and skills sharing.
Focus on making pips and your bottom line.
  • #55,460
  • Sep 3, 2016 6:36am Sep 3, 2016 6:36am
Quoting fti
{quote} Ahhh, i longtime no riding the wind in my face. NFP battle. nice? wah lucky you, gets whole body alive and ringing. steady as she goes, my friend. ride the wind. What a rush?huh? yeeeeeha i still can feel those days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mynzbmrtp9I regards don't worry about the maths. is for corp peeps show thay know how to tweek the macchinery, even for cookie i don't want to show too much. different corps have different risk and managing profile. not every one runs things the same way. and is probably create...


don't worry about the corp part, i not intending to work for corps. easier to manage money than have manage money and still run into risk of being pulled into politics, im already see-ing it in my current work place now.

just some video for lifters on a saturday night.

Inserted Video
19 traders viewing now