Hidden divergence - page 32
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
Can you go into more detail from here? ...... :)
You can do that in person, too. The thing is, I've tried repeatedly to cross time with pips, but it never worked. Any techniques are interesting....
And you need it - time. For the purposes of this thread, what matters is the fact itself - divergence. And in numerical expression it is > or < 0.0 and > or < 1.0, i.e. the fact of its presence, and the absolute value - "steepness", and maybe a "measure of importance".
It's also possible to private.
I'm against "privates" - an old-school man - "eh uhhnem", "naivalsya itself will go", "but in the field of ballet, we are ahead of the entire planet" and so on, etc.
And I am "obliged", and I do not want to be "obliged" in this theme yet.
And this has yet to be calculated, don't you think? ..... and the risk of 50\50 is not a great price to pay if there is a statistically reasonable probability.....
Very much in favour of stat justification. But first we need to implement the calculation of KFOR, and for this we need to decide on the method of identifying them. I suggested three options (you can make some combination of them) or propose an alternative. And then move on.
Many and very many on this site are much more suggestive of risk.
Valery, you can propose anything you like. Where are the results of these suggestions? The signal properties are such that you cannot be sure of the accurate entry up to a pip with any super system. But one can and should strive for it, so that the error is not 30-50 pips but 10-15 pips.
If you noticed, it's not a question of manual trading where if you use M5-15 one can go crazy... but if you take 10 points you crawl aside and transfer your spirit for a day, it's an automatic trader that you don't need to track.
you don't have to keep track of it.... I don't need to track it if I built it myself and have confidence in it.
I don't think you don't know about slippages and other delights of any (both automatic and manual) trading, so confidence is also limited and it's better to always have a margin of safety.
These are all lyrics. I have some confidence (not from scratch) that this SD works..... but then there are only questions..... how to separate the brilliant inputs from the ghost ones, which oscillator is better to use, on which TF to work,
on what TFs the peaks and troughs (fractals) are calculated...... Besides, despite the unwillingness to increase the number of optimized parameters, their sufficient number due to purely objective factors is accumulated......
I have that certainty too. But to separate something from something, you have to first indetify it and gather statistics.
If we exploit a certain market property, it will work on any TF and it is almost irrelevant which oscillators (indicators) must have the necessary identical properties. The optimization will not affect significantly and will refer only to the measured period.
And for skeptics of "MA" I have only one phrase: I do not know how and why it works, but it works! :)
What do you mean by that?
We understand that if at some moment the selling has sharply accelerated in the uptrend, but has not reached the level of the previous low, it means that the mass of orders opened in the opposite direction has closed, but the number of new orders opened in the trend and the size of the total position in the trend exceeds the size of the total closed position.
This is the situation that the indicators capture.
I have already commented on this issue. The indicators do not register any of these events, but you can give any interpretation to the indicator readings.
Rule #4 (we will rename it later)
In the chart for determination of the BOD, we represent the price as a curve MA1Close, and then superimpose MA1CloseBlack over it, thus removing it from the screen. Then we overlay MA1High and MA1Low on the price chart.
The chart is ready for analysis.
Can we explain the sacred meaning of these actions?
For what analysis? What is being analyzed?
In your previous upper picture we see two five-waves, and at 18.07 at 20.00 and 21.07 at 7.00 we see a KFOR, and since this peak on the price chart is below the reference point, I say that this is a down trend and I can safely open a down position by at least 10p. You can do more if you have methods that are not described anywhere.
Who sees five waves? I don't. What is the formalization of identifying waves.
You jump on them even though you haven't yet decided on the detection of DK.
Well, here are the figures, which eloquently show that divergence (Hidden and unhidden) is far from always good
The question is how far :-)
Can you help to calculate it? Or has that work already been done?
In fact, in the figures the divergence is not quite correctly drawn (it is simply not there according to any definition by both "authors").
I pointed out that DC can be identified by three points 1) by the beginning according to the price or indicator (comparison of values) 2) by a fractal of the price or indicator 3) by a complementary DC
It is there and indicated by the beginning.
On a price chart, the "segment" must pass through the "local extrema". I was referring specifically to Xadviser's drawings, which actually served as the basis for the "critical statement" to which I responded.
This is variant 2
to SergNF
The trade secret is "scrubbed".Why. Fractals are enough.
I don't need an analytical solution to a "system of equations". It is enough for me to collect statistics to make sure that in the past the "personal factor of the draughtsman" or the "ballet we have not fucked up yet...." was more significant.
:)
I pointed out that the identification of ACs can be done in three ways 1) by the start at the price or indicator (comparing values) 2) by the fractal of the price or indicator 3) by a complementary AC
It is there and indicated by the beginning.
I remember, that is why I kept silent and replied only to YuraZ' s post
Why. 'Fractals' is enough.
I don't need an analytical solution to a 'system of equations'. It is enough for me to collect statistics to make sure that in the past the "personality factor of the draughtsman" or "we haven't fucked up ballet yet...." was more significant.
:)
Larry Williams wrote about the 60s and 90s something like this: ...traders using charts were called chartists.
So then computers got cheaper and the market changed.
Now I see the signs - something else got cheaper and we with our algorithmic primitives may soon have nothing to do.
.... I'm sorry, this is a complete nonsense - what are we going to analyse - the High-Low channel - how?
In general, the further, the more, but there is a feeling that you "started" this topic without properly understanding your own rules, hence all sorts of misunderstandings......
I second that. We need to start "small" with catching DCs, then move on.
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 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 and the size of a total position in the trend exceeds the size of a total closed position.
This is the situation that the indicators fix."
They do not fix anything. I am tired of saying it again. Look at how any indicator/oscillator is calculated. It is as far from orders as I am from penguins. Don't let yourself be misled. And you can interpret anything and everything you want.
I might add here that the volume of money supply was not enough to push this level (notional) through..... but how to calculate this moment is the question of the questions.....
Larry Williams wrote about 60-90's something like this: ...traders using charts were called chartists.
So then computers got cheaper and the market changed.
Now I see the signs - something else got cheaper, and we with our algorithmic primitives may soon have nothing to do.
I mean, soon the "price graph" will look like a "step function" :)
ZS. I also don't get into discussions about the nature of "price movement" :)
"I, for one, am not at all interested in Richard III..."