Deep Blue, IBMs second machine, beat Kasparov, not Big Blue. Deep blue used a TWEAKED brute force attack to beat Gary. Only the intelligent paths are searched. All the complex chess playing algorithms that the computer science community had been developing for decades was thrown out the window for a massive chess specific array of processors. Coupled with a huge database of known chess positions, it was enough to beat Gary. The massively parallel machine was capable of computing 100-200 billion moves within three minutes. Version 2 will double the speed, and contains 256 of these custom chess processors. None of this fancy neural net stuff was used to my knowledge. peace axeman
Of course there's disagreement over price. Otherwise price would never change. Who said timeframes don't influence each other? I hope you're as good at trading as you are at setting up straw men.
ROFL Can I requote your quote on this very board from 5 minutes ago?? HAHAHA. - I'm not setting up strawmen - You're setting yourself up as a jester! Get a life man - Even a phoenix can only burn so many times... ~Scientist
We'll have to disagree on that. I couldn't care less about making a market for anybody; I'm concerned about making a profitable trade. We'll have to disagree on that as well. Levels at which participants have bought and sold do not lag; they're already in the chart and provide potential support and resistance. Whether they will in fact provide support or resistance will not be known until price gets there, which is one difference between a pullback and a reversal. If an MA represented consensus value in any time frame, then it would provide consistent support and resistance. It doesn't, largely because there is no "it" but rather a great many "they" and also because there is no agreement as to what is a fair price. If one wants to know "what the majority of market participants think is the general price", find those levels at which the majority of them bought and sold the instrument.
So? The price at any given moment doesn't change across timeframes. $2 is $2. It isn't $1.90 on a 5m chart and $2.25 on the 15.
UR right axeman. No neural nets were used for Deep Blue. However, they're to my knowledge becoming standard in good chess programs these days, and most can outperform every chessplayer. My great admiration to you for your observation and to Kasparov for his amazing mind, being able to beat anything but an absolute MEGA-monster-supercomputer... Won't go into my head, that.... Peace, Scienceman
Ah, but you ARE making a market whether you want to or not. We are, for all intents and purposes, electronic pit traders. We are all searching for some sort of edge that will help us ride the coat tails of the long term, big money players. Whether its scalping between support/resistance (ie the buyers group on end of the pit and the sellers on the other end) or riding along as the buyers trample the sellers. We do not move the markets, we provide the liquidity and make the market, that is how we as traders make money. You're still arguing around the same points that I already made. MA is just a moving target of value. I barely, if at all, use MAs. I myself ascribe to Auction Market Theory and Market Profile, which does in fact try and identify high volume price lines.
LOL - Now you're REALLY making a fool of yourself : This isn't what I was talking about. I never argued that a price changes across timeframes. All I said is that the timeframes have an effect on each other. YOU - And right now you're trying to distract - Negated yourself TWICE in the same breath within 5 minutes... I repeat it here clearly, so even a moron can get it: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from dbphoenix (1): Of course there's disagreement over price. Otherwise price would never change. Who said timeframes don't influence each other? ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from dbphoenix (2) - 5 minutes later: Price is price, either higher, lower, or the same as a minute ago (or whenever). There can be no disagreement as to price. There are no settings, no timeframes. It is what it is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you're so blatantly contradicting yourself, you're obviously a wannabe and don't know what you're talking about... Sorry, ~Scientist
Aaah... At least somebody who understands at least the basics of how markets work. Very much unlike phoenix Seems to be one of phoenix's issues. Maybe he should consider some professional help... -Hmmm, phoenix? ~Scientist
Yes, but that's not my objective, anymore than my purpose in buying a new air conditioner is to inject liquidity into the economy. MA is a representation of what price was at some point or series of points. That price represents only what n people paid for the instrument. Whether that price represented "value" is a separate issue. The MA is irrelevant. This is not to say that people can't make money using MAs. People make money using stochastics, CCIs, MACDs, RSIs, and other of hundreds of indicators. But all of these indicators are derivatives of price (and/or volume). So why not understand price? Look at the infamous Moving Average Crossover!. MA "A" crossed above MA "B". Why? Because price rose. Whether or not the MA movement is "important" depends entirely on whether or not the price movement is important. Those who make their judgements based on price movement are always going to be ahead.