Hidden divergence - page 15
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
...or artificially create conditions under which at least some simple analytical properties of Close[] series are fulfilled, from which then derive valid interpretations of signals from traditional indices.
By the way, about inertia: Yuri, you know that this is just a property of representation... The 3 pictures shown to you recently show that changing the representation also changes the inertia, making it more predictable, to say the least.
One point of my previous post where Geronimo wrote: "About the purity of the material. There are no names on those indicators in the pictures.
About credibility. Divergences are more reliable and are detected on the SECOND troughs (tops) when they are both below the 0-line, or above the 0-line (or average, for example 50)", and I called it a gross error, not to be unfounded, I will clarify.
On the chart below the divergence signal (namely the divergence) by trend (green lines) is absolutely usual and clear. And here the first divergence signal (namely the divergence) by trend (white lines) is unusual. In it, the minima on the indicator chart correspond to the minima on the price chart, which are on opposite sides of the indicator zero line.
For everyone I want to emphasize: - do not consider the zero line of the indicator when determining the divergence signals (or convergence) on the charts.
In the chart as an indicator of MACD_H (OsMA), or rather its analogue FX5_Divergence with parameters 9, 21, 5.
I argue that even though the price has bounced back in the right direction, but
firstly you are showing a Hidden D-B and its definition I gave in the previous posts,
Secondly, it occurred after the Straight D-B (ibid.), so its credibility is not very high
Third, we are talking about statistics, that is why don't show me several charts that can be easily picked from history, because the same combination of signals on a different symbol or timeframe may cause the price correction in the opposite direction,
Fourthly, only the Expert Advisor (i.e. the result) can tell us, which will show statistics on correct entries by various divergence definitions,
Fifthly, my posts provide clear definitions, not reasoning, and I still do not see your short definition of the output,
Sixthly, I still don't see the indicator name on the chart, not in the text, and its parameters (and in all drawings they should be the same for a certain instrument and timeframe), that's why I don't consider these figures reliable (since I myself can adjust the values of various indicators to a chart and use them as the same one) And the fact that this is the "current moment" on this chart is not defined in any way.
Seventh, Gerald Appel's recommendations on determination of divergence in his indicator do not inspire you? And he is one of the classics of TA.
Eighth, concerning the transition through 0. Do you know how MACD is calculated, for example? If so, then there should be no objections to 0. Especially since I said that "...Divergences are more reliable..." .
The answer to the first question is: none. The conclusion is based on Newton's 1st law: if forex is not acted upon by news, statements of influencers, interventions and the like, the current trend will continue. For a while. So all this is an intuitive perception of the inertia of phenomena, which, it must be said, has some basis in fact.
The answer to the second question is to prove or disprove the existence of inertia in the market.
Looking at all this, Alex Niroba comes to mind. He was also a fighter for the omnipotence of wave theory. By the way, he had some reasons for this; he really got into EWT, formulated some ideas, calculated using them and even successfully traded on the demo. The only problem - all this complex was completely unformalizable. Therefore, like with MA crossing condition, the main reason for trading remains uncovered - in Alex's mind.
I think the situation is the same here. The articles offered by respected s2101 contain a lot of pictures and words. Unfortunately, all these words and pictures refer to individual cases. If you try to take it all as a ready-made generalization, problems and unanswered questions will come pouring out of the horn of plenty. And the author himself, apparently, cannot generalize and formalize it. That's probably why he came here as a Guru and not as an MTS customer. But that's okay. Alex liked to slap and swear too. It is understandable - the great ones are few and must be appreciated. :-)
= And the author himself, apparently, cannot generalize and formalize it.
I not only generalized and formalized, but also implemented it in practice.
= That's probably why he came here as a Guru and not as an MTS customer.
What MTS order can we talk about when many (if not most) programmers do not understand the basic fundamentals of thechanalysis.
(May those programmers who have a deep knowledge of thechanalysis forgive me).
s2101: Frankly speaking, you just intrigue me. I hope the articles posted by you will moderate my skepticism...
Honestly - I hope that my accidental appearance on this forum will bring at least some benefit in terms of deeper and more accurate analysis of any current market situation.
Good luck to all.
1. and Teganalysis is just "practical mass psychology" and the apologists of Classical Teganalysis strongly recommend
a kind of contradiction.
2. IF
s2101 is not a coder
coders are busy with agreements on terms
I personally find it difficult to write the code for finding "local extrema" and synchronizing them (extrema) for different "indicators
TO
stalemate, i.e. there will be no statistics.
:(
Deadlock. Because (let me imagine) with mass distribution of this post among tens of millions of MT4 users in 2 years the Hidden D-K (as a statistical pattern) will stop working. Or it will be included by market makers in their arsenal of market manipulation techniques. There is no telling which is worse.
And I unfortunately find it hard to write, so I asked to create an indicator that measures divergence, and then there will be an advisor, for the money and put a mate in $ .... for s2101 in some cafe on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, if he doesn't mind.
They say you can read the future on the scales of this tin fish. Work again.
It's nearly midnight, still no councillor ))))
I have not only generalised and formalised, I have also practically implemented it.
What MTS order can we talk about when many (if not most) programmers do not understand the elementary basics of thechanalysis.
Explain what it means "practically implemented". Have you successfully traded on demo/realtime, micro/mini/full lots, hand/mTS, and other aspects of implementation.
I can reassure you. To write MTS, the programmer does not need to know the basics of TA, or even what TA is. All he needs is a competent terms of reference. And writing this terms of reference is the customer's responsibility. True, he is unlikely to cope with it, if the solution is not generalized and formalized.
One more thing. You have already been advised to lower the temperature of your texts. Take this advice. The community you mention (not only programmers, but all the panelists) not only perfectly understands the necessary aspects of TA, but also the scheme you advocate, its strengths and weaknesses, its capabilities and limitations, and so on. The idea is not a new one. Traders have been using this tool for a long time. And it has long been known that its signals are unreliable and poorly formalized. Perhaps, this is why you can't provide statistics that would confirm your assertion. And everyone can lay out nice pictures here.
I've been wary of two things all my life: enthusiasm and altruism..... neither of which, by and large, in any lasting perspective, is intrinsic to human nature....
This is true, but it is also true - if no one around here believes that "preaching is also useful for the priest" and a level of "which is pleasant to share" can be achieved, then one has to act on the trend.
So the author got offended. Eh Mathematician, such an author missed, now he will erase his posts))))
This is true, but it is also true - if no one around here believes that "preaching is also useful for the priest" and a level of "which is pleasant to share" can be achieved, then one has to act on the trend.
:).... add here also many.... is it so nice to share?
Market repeatability is the only market property that we can exploit.
All our hopes are reduced to the fact that this property exists and manifests itself.
Our job comes down to expressing this property in mathematical terms.
13 * Close[1] > ( Close[1] + Close[2] + Close[3] + ... + Close[13] )
Great, now - stupid question: why, on what analytical basis do we believe that the price will rise for at least some time, if we know this condition? Where in this condition is the information about future bars? There isn't any. There it is, the schizophrenia of the wrecking ball. Or rather, not the wreck itself, but our interpretation of the signal. I apologize for the diagnosis, but I do not see any reason for optimism so far.
Information about future bars is embedded in the idea that certain events will occur when this condition is reached with probability !=50%.
In my opinion it is quite normal to look for regularities in the form of such formulas. Not only MA ratio, but also the fractal nature of the market, and the ratio of divergences and convergences can be attributed to the varieties of such phenomena.
Are you also skeptical about divergence?
Let's not confuse our emotional estimation with the actual state of affairs. It is useless to say "in general". You can say anything (which some participants do). We need to be specific. And then not to "treat" one way or the other, but simply to voice the findings.
I think the situation is the same here. The articles suggested by the respected s2101 are full of pictures and words. Unfortunately, all these words and pictures refer to special cases. If you try to take it all as a ready-made generalization, problems and unanswered questions will come pouring out of the horn of plenty. And the author himself, apparently, cannot generalize and formalize it. That's probably why he came here as a Guru and not as an MTS customer. But that's okay. Alex liked to slap and swear too. It is understandable - the great ones are few and must be appreciated. :-)
I think so, too. Questions are already pouring in, but the author doesn't answer them, he just says what he likes.
--
However, I think there is a rational reason in the author's statements.
But in order to understand it we should all refrain from groundless, categorical, premature generalizations and conclusions.
To begin with, at the very least, do not make any assessment of the participants in any way.
--
It is best to start first in the classic academic style, namely:
1. The author gives a definition of the terms.
2. The author gives his assertion about some properties of the market.
3. The author gives a formula that allows the calculation of the fact and quantification of the said property.
Specific terms, formulas, and meanings are needed.
In the process of discussion, it is possible to localise the boundary conditions, within which the presented statements will be true.
It is quite possible that from all this one can get if not a cash cow, then a small milking goat, which (considering that most participants have nothing at all in their hands but hovering in the clouds) is not bad at all either.
4. If the results are any good, we'll find people who would like to implement the goat as a code and put it out for public testing.