Hidden divergence - page 43
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 should add, do you think 200% p.a. on a full automatic is a great result?
If so, such MTS really exist - I can give you a link if you are interested.
200% per annum are quite realistic figures. Only a few questions arise.
1. Does over-optimization happen or not? And how often?
2. What criteria are used to select an optimization option?
3. What is the drawdown? and what is the MM?
to YuaZ
realistically 80 to 120% p.a. without loss and up to 200% in a crisis market. This is an excellent result.
P.S I can explain - in corporate work, trust in the advisor is a long process of checking and then comes the personal responsibility for the work of the advisor.
Overoptimisation is again done by corporate methods, i.e. again responsibility, again PE.
Therefore 120 p.a. with minimal risk of liability is an excellent result.
How can a DK of any kind confirm a trend? And if we are, and we certainly are, in which one?
Here's an example.
The trend is rising. The instrument is indicated. Hidden according to you, DK is against the trend.
I.e. the one in my picture is marked as common and it was quite obvious. Moreover, its action was strengthened (confirmed) by the local AC (it was more difficult to see), but the price did not continue the upward movement and turned down. What is shown is on the verge of art. It is very difficult to trace such BCD. I showed it just as an example.
And if you entered at the beginning of the AC (hidden), your expectation would lead you to the minus (see picture below)
By the way, here is a good example when (in your interpretation) the hidden AC is complemented by the direct (conventional) AC. This combination is quite a strong signal, but even it didn't work here.
ANSWER
confirms like this - from earlier posts
Rule #2
- THE PRESENCE OF A HIDDEN DC CONFIRMS THAT WE ARE ON TREND.Rule #5
We understand a trend as a 5 wave structure at a given time.
On the specified instrument and frame I see 3 waves (3rd not completed) - 2 down and one up. On all KFORs played out but not where you have shown. If you see three waves there then you will see KFOR as well. You are measuring KFOR in different waves. What kind of chart should be waiting to be analysed, I have already written - MA1Hight, MA1Low.
To set the oscillator, use the recommended values, otherwise you will get a lot of false signals. What indicators I use, I have already written. (Preferably with levels).
Recall that all developers usually recommend settings from D1 frame.
ANSWER
We understand a trend as a 5-wave structure at a given time.On the indicated instrument and frame I see 3 waves (3rd unfinished) - 2 down and one up. On all KFORs played out, but not where you showed. If you see three waves there then you will see KFOR as well. You are measuring KFOR in different waves. What kind of chart should be waiting to be analysed, I have already written - MA1Hight, MA1Low.
To set the oscillator, use the recommended values. What indicators I use, I have already written. I have already written about them (preferably with levels).
Let me remind you that all the developers recommend to adjust settings usually from frame D1.
My dear Geronimo I have already told you that by jumping from one aspect to another you (I'm writing "you" now, not "we") will not gain anything. As long as there is no coherent and well-founded sequence of actions, there will be no result.
It's going to sink in these 43 pages of flub. I, on the other hand, state that it has already sunk. So I regret to leave this thread. I'm sorry because it's an important topic, and I'm leaving ..... already explained.
Good luck to you.
...hollow...
'
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.
'
The fact that everything I wrote is a figment of my sick imagination - I'm ready to agree (it won't do me any harm). but the word trough is present in the posts.
- 'Hidden' Div-Con on a bullish trend is when the trough on the indicator is deeper than the trough on the price chart and deeper (or equal) to the trough on the indicator from which the reference starts.
This I have already written as the definition of KFOR.
Yes, extrema do not always coincide thats why I use 5 indicators.
You should not make indicators too sensitive. At least try to use H4 frames if you cannot use H8. KFOR gives too little feedback on small frames. It is good for training there but not for trading.
I have already told you, dear Geronimo, that jumping from one aspect to another (I am already writing "you" and not "we") will not achieve anything. We are not going to achieve anything unless we have a coherent and well-founded sequence of actions.
It will sink into these 43 pages of floods. I'm stating that it has already sunk. Therefore I regret to leave this thread. Regretfully, because it's an important topic, and I'm leaving ..... already explained.
>> Good luck to you.
I really do not have time. The day was not at the computer and now need to respond to 13 pages, and people do not read first. I have to repeat myself and ... Perhaps I should write an article on the results of this thread. I hope you may still trade KFW manually using standard indicators (without excessive sensitivity). Sometimes it seems to me that the branch is deliberately bogged down.
The sequence of actions here may only be for manual trading. The ToR for the indicator and the Expert Advisor are not posted here yet.
Let me remind you that a correct ToR is 80% of the work. The rest is translation of the algorithm into code.
you're on your way to becoming a "mastermind" little by little..... I don't know what it is, maybe a reluctance to disclose everything?
Rule #4 (we will rename it later)
In the chart for determination of the KFOR, we depict the price as MA1Close curve and then superimpose MA1CloseBlack over 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 came through 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 says that a 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 position closed.
This is the situation the indicators are capturing."
No offence. What to disclose - how to make TOR for everyone and you stick your EAs on? I am thinking about who to give ToR to.
When they tell me that they will not even give me ex4 for testing, I will not give it.
But if I am sent at least an indicator for my TOR, it will be a different conversation.
Yes, analysing the extremes of the channel. What's so surprising about that?
After all, I'm talking about my manual (visual) method of trading. And it is so convenient for me to analyze.
I always suggested to leave diverters-Covers alone for 5 times, but I keep coming back to this topic over and over again.
Let's forget about any kind of divergence other than latent - for the sake of brevity KFD.
I suggest
Show that in the presence of KFOR the trend has gone the other way.
We use the H4 frame, standard CCI, EURUSD from the beginning of the year.s2101 suggested to consider only those ACs, which were formed simultaneously on all TFs from one hour and below, looking at H4 and above.
(He, however, had a reservation, they are still forming.... Probably, it is the connection of the left extremum point with Close[1] and MACD[1] correspondingly for the "higher TF").
IMHO. It will be good for Geronimo as well.
Until I prove that KFD always works unambiguously we will not talk about a code.
MACs (direct divergences-convergences) are not considered.
I did not write that he refused. I only suggested that the indicator did not suit him. I think the reasons for his decision should be clarified with him.
P.S. By the way, whose love of freebies do you mean exactly?
I haven't said no yet. If no one offers ex4 to test it, we'll discuss it.
I haven't said no yet. If no one offers ex4 to check, we'll discuss it.
no one here has fully understood what kind of indicator you need......