Hidden divergence - page 31
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
Come on. On a price chart, the 'cut-off' has to pass through 'local extrema'.
What are local extrema?
Where in my definition does it say that?
Not true.Hello all until tonight.
That's the same with divergence, just say hello to all until tonight, look - here she is again))))
What are local extrema?
Where in my definition does it say that?
...trough....
'
Otherwise it turns out that at the right end of the chart, once the MACD has drawn a maximum/minimum (i.e. on the next bar) we draw a line on the price chart from the previous '______' to Close[1] (at best to Close[2])? And assess the relative position of the segments |MACD[x]-MACD[2]| and |Close[x]-Close[2]|?
I won't argue about "schemes"/terms, etc., but everywhere the lines are supposed to be drawn along troughs/extremes/minimums/maximums, etc., etc. And, in general, the segments in the price and indicator chart may have different coordinates in abscissa axis.
'
That all that I have written is a figment of my morbid imagination - I'm ready to agree (it won't do me any harm). But the word trough in my posts is present.
On the price chart, yes. Go back I wrote what indicators I use.
you're slowly becoming a "master"..... I don't know if it's because you don't want to disclose everything?
but, nevertheless, it's better to avoid repetition: "what and for what"? ..... if there is a desire, of course, because yours is:
Rule #4 (we'll rename it later).
On the chart for determining the BOD, the price is plotted as a curve MA1Close, and then superimpose MA1CloseBlack on it, thus removing it from the screen. Then we apply MA1High and MA1Low to the price chart.
The chart is ready for analysis.
.... this is, sorry, a complete nonsense - what shall we analyse - the High-Low channel - how?
In general, the further, the more, but there is a feeling that you "made up" this topic without properly understanding your own rules, hence all sorts of misunderstandings......
Divers-Covers (top-bottom chart, not worth any egg at all), it's all secondary - the only sober thought that's been expressed here, regardless of my previous statements (I'll defend myself, and sharply :))))):
"we understand that if at some point in an uptrend the selling has accelerated sharply, but has not reached the level of the previous low, it indicates that a mass of orders opened in the opposite direction has closed, but the number of new orders opened along the trend and the size of the total position along the trend exceeds the size of the total position closed.
This is the situation the indicators are capturing."
here we can add that there wasn't enough money supply to push this (conditional) level..... but how to calculate this point is the question of the questions..... if we really believe that "Price is our ALL" ..... we do, don't we? :).... otherwise why are we here?
As for the fact that "programmers" are not friendly with tehanalysis, Mr. Korey said it all. Korey said it all on this subject and even more :)..... Personally for me, by the level of discussion it's definitely clear that coding does not prevent the analysis,
but contributes to, but on the contrary..... don't know :(
The problem of the discussion is that they discuss the behaviour of the indicator, i.e. within the framework of the notion of "indicator",
but they keep mentioning that the technical solution of the divergence we discuss requires a graphical tool that measures the indicator.
Question: do you have any formula for this graphical tool to measure the indicator divergence? )))))
We "trading engineers" are in the business of extracting knowledge and packaging it into algorithms.
When they write to us WE KNOW WE'RE IN THE TREND, it means:
====Allo! Garage! Put down the greyhound!
and other reprises from the Volga-Volga movie.
not a hint :)....
The problem with the discussion is that the discussion here is about the behaviour of the indicator, i.e. within the concept of "indicator",
but it seems that for a technical solution on the discussed divergence one needs a graphical tool which measures the indicator.
Question: do you have any formula for this graphical tool to measure the indicator divergence? )))))
I may be wrong, I won't deny it, but there is only one dimension +- in pips......
The rationing question is not idle, don't you agree? :)
....Do you have any formula for this graphical tool to measure indicator divergence? )))))
I have - 'ordinate ratio.
'
It's just that many people out of habit approach topics like this as a ToR. Well, none of the "two authors" will not formulate it (one not interested, the other is probably not fully worked out the concept). All the more 'no money theme, and so nothing is "not documented.
'
All that I have read is one of the components of the system - divergence. In numerical expression it can be a "ratio of ordinates of two ends of a segment" (so that one can cross the price with MACD and not to repeatedly engage in flaming about "criminal scales".
We will obtain 2 numbers - for the price chart 0.95 - decrease, for the indicator chart - 1.06 - increase. (in the end - contraction). And then - either chart 'those two numbers' as a function of, for example, 'leading momentum', or subtract 1.06 from 0.95 and again a function...
'
Understand - some traders use MANUAL drawn divergence in their MANUAL trading systems. So why not try to 'cross a horse and a trembling doe'. At least ... To collect statistics.
I have - "ordinate ratio".
Can you go into more detail here? ...... :)
It's possible to do it in private. Thing is, I've tried repeatedly to cross time with pips, but it never worked out. Any techniques of interest....
The trader is looking for profit so he explains the divergence on entry points (sometimes exit points)).
The trader gets nervous when his "profitable" explanations are not understood.
However the engineering approach is to study the divergence in the characteristic areas without thinking about profit.
Such a testing area can be a trend in different forms.
That is, we should not look for and prove the entry points on the divergence - it hinders research.
To begin with, for the foundation, find a clear answer - what kind of information divergence provides.
Having found the information/divergence ratio on the trend, one could move forward more confidently. And there is Elder with his 3D))