Hidden divergence - page 26
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
I have to say that you are absolutely correct in your observation. Let's analyze what you do when building, for example, so-called moving channels (or any other channels). You are building a new channel with every new extremum, and after the price has already changed and formed this new extremum. That is you TRANSFER, but with a great delay. Moreover, when guided by the former channel, you cannot say in advance whether the price will break through it, reflect from it or not reach it at all (i.e. the reference points are undefined).
Now it's my turn to agree. There has even been some research done on the subject. So I hardly ever use traditional channels. I use other methods to assess trendiness.
In other words, I want to note (irrelevant to your comment) that people are so accustomed to the fact that any indicator re-drawing is bad that they call it bad where it is an advantage.
For a channel, redrawing is an advantage, not a disadvantage. And the overdrawing of this channel is not very significant.
There are two sides to every coin :-) One must keep in mind the second one as well.
Likewise. Nice to see a trader here.
Can I be blunt, but honest? s2101 hasn't said anything new at all, and neither have I. Everything has been said before us. I am only emphasizing the Hidden D-K as a Signal-Indicator.
Hidden D/K signal from materials which are 11 years old.
About the wave I wrote there on p.8. You can decompose it here as well, starting from A.
Don't worry so much, everything will be fine ;-) Who cares who said what or didn't say what?
About the wave structure I mentioned in connection with the assumption of its use as a filter. I.e. TC=D/K+VTE+Trand. I confess that I myself am rather weak on the question of waves and the lack of formalization adds oil to it.
I repeat - not every signal is of practical value. This is manual trading and it cannot be infallible and 100% profitable. My definitions are not the final authority, but an attempt to formalize observations and practice. Although I can play the guru and condescendingly praise my alleged followers. But that is not why I started this thread.
Fractals are lagging even according to V.Kelasev. That is why I try to take few pips, but guaranteed right after the signal is detected. That's why I don't care whether the signal is primary or secondary.
That's what I am asking about the exit. Is it a fixed number of points or another signal?
Fractals IMHO will not do. Pay attention at what point the D/C arises.
I frequently do not go in because if you work by all signals you may appear in a mental hospital in half a year.
That's why I'm talking about the filter :-)
Well, it's almost done now.
Don't worry about it. All your secrets will sink into this limitless flood. If we are lucky enough to find one (maximum two) interested programmers, things will get going. And for it to work, you just need to present everything openly and clearly and in the most formalized way.
By your definition latent D/K
By my definition a general D/A
for better identification of entry on a smaller timeframe
By my definition a local B/C
By your definition latent D/K
By my definition a general D/A
for better identification of entry on a smaller timeframe
By my definition a local B/K
And yet, we definitely haven't agreed on the terms yet :((((
Mathemat 19.07.2008 01:14
... I think it's more of a statistical, pseudo-science thing.
Personally, I don't mind :)
The only thing missing is the "trendofflet" indicator (again, I'm not joking, but I'm smiling), to give some figures and the 5th wave indicator (the 3rd wave indicator, by Geronimo, I think I have seen). After that, I want to upload these 4 numbers ("trendofflet" in the past and future) and data FX5_Divergence_V2.1.mq4
It will just be though!!!! the basis for arguments, although I repeat - what I've read is not formalizable!!!! ' (not algorithmic) and this has been emphasised!!!!
'
I'm not against 'statistics', but ... 'To every vegetable his own fruit'.
And yet, definitely, we haven't agreed on the terms yet :((((
bottom picture Xadviser 21.07.2008 04:39
the Straight D-K is shown as the trend has not yet unfolded - see the refined wording of the Hidden D-K on the previous page. And the top one shows both Straight and Hidden. It is not clear which instrument we are looking at.
Straight D-K would be better called Divergence (I repeat in the sense of divergence from price chart extrema or Divergence - may someone suggest another term) due to confusion when moving the indicator window above the price chart. If you check the term on the Internet, it appears that both Divergence and Convergence are called as Divergence.
I personally don't mind :)
The only thing missing is the "trendofflet" indicator (again, I'm not kidding, but I'm smiling), to give some figures and the 5th wave indicator (the 3rd wave indicator, by Geronimo, I think I've seen). After that, I want to upload these 4 numbers ("trendofflet" in the past and future) and the data FX5_Divergence_V2.1.mq4
It will just be though!!!! the basis for arguments, although I repeat - what I've read is not formalizable!!!! ' (not algorithmic) and this has been emphasised!!!!
'
I'm not against 'statistics', but ... 'to every vegetable his own fruit'.
Not formalisable-algorithmisable what?
Anything that is depicted and has stable features can be formalised.
Let's go through my posts on the previous page.
bottom figure Xadviser 21.07.2008 04:39
Straight D-K is shown because the trend hasn't reversed yet - see the revised definition of Hidden D-K on the previous page. And on the top there are both Straight and Hidden.
Straight D-K should better be called Divergence (I repeat in the sense of divergence from price chart extrema or Divergence - maybe someone will suggest another term) due to confusion when moving the indicator window above the price chart. If you check the term on the Internet it will appear that both Divergence and Convergence are called as Divergence.
in my uneducated opinion, moving the graphs "above-below" should have no effect on the terms at all:
1. There is a divergence: a new maximum/minimum of the price - it is not confirmed by a maximum/minimum of the oscillator
2. There is a reverse divergence (hidden, local, "unfair"): price doesn't form a new maximum/minimum - but a new oscillator maximum/minimum is formed.
and all this in absolute values, without reference to a sign
Accepted - "divergence" and "latent divergence"? Or does anyone else see anything else? (subspecies are not counted yet) .....
Not formalisable-algorithmisable what?
Anything that is depicted and has stable features can be formalised.
Let's go through my posts on the previous page.
but for this, the one who sees these signs, at least, should at least define for himself what it means at each particular moment in relation to the TF in which it is observed.... and what should be done at each individual moment in time..... otherwise it turns out intuitive - I want to do it, I want not to
In my uneducated opinion, moving the graphs "above and below" should have no effect on the terms at all:
1. There is divergence: a new price maximum/minimum is not confirmed by an oscillator maximum/minimum
2. There is the reverse divergence (hidden, local, "unfair"): the price does not form a new maximum/minimum - but the oscillator forms a new maximum/minimum.
And all this is in absolute values, without relation to the sign
Accepted - "divergence" and "implicit divergence"? Or does anyone else see something else? (subspecies not taken into account yet).....
1. There is a divergence: new high/low price - not confirmed by the oscillator high/low - OK ONLY WHICH IS DIFFERENT and which is normal (Straight).
2. There is a reverse divergence (hidden, local, "unfair"): the price does not make a new maximum/minimum - but the oscillator makes a new maximum/minimum (but it must still be below the oscillator to be counted from).
and all that in absolute values, irrespective of the sign - let's call latent reversion (local, unfair - incorrect) and keep it that way.
But its definition on the previous page is more correct - paste
- It is when the dip on the indicator is deeper than the dip on the price chart and deeper (or equal) than the dip on the indicator, from which the pattern originates.
- Inverse Divergence on a bearish trend is when the top on the indicator is higher than the top on the price chart and higher (orequal) than the top on the indicator, from which the counting starts.
The hidden D-K, fixed at the indicator extrema, confirms the trend (I am not sure, it is a nice formulation).
Let's grind it out, but the wording has to be precise after all. In capital letters, I'm not shouting, just stressing.
----------------
rider..... what should be done at each individual moment of time..... otherwise the intuitive turns out - I want to do it, I want not to do it ....
After having diagnosed the Inverse Divergence (no, I feel we should leave the Hidden D-C - it will confuse people who don't read it first) we enter in the direction of the main trend. (we are talking about manual trading).
and the exit will be suggested by s2101.
So
Rule #1
- after having diagnosed the Hidden D\K - we enter in the direction of the main trend.
I.e. we understand that if at some moment the sales have sharply accelerated in the uptrend, but have not reached the level of the previous minimum, it means that the mass of orders opened in the opposite direction has closed, but the number of new orders opened in the trend direction and the size of the total position in the trend direction is higher than the size of the total closed position.
This situation is fixed by the indicators.