To follow up - page 4
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 would make this beam a separate object. like a headlight. It shines forward and the car skids. ;)
>> It can. So as not to be confused with the formed one. >> I'll think about it.
And if you also remember permanently illuminated price ranges brightly and the rest depending on the amount of beam capture - just a cloud of probable direction could be obtained.
Instructive for redrawing.
I don't quite get it.
Didn't quite get it.
let's assume at the first bar value the range of the beam with a shift of 20 bars is 1.45-1.48
on the second 1.452-1.482, then 1.4518-1.4819 and then it goes over.
that means the 1.4518-1.4819 range is the brightest.
>> the rest are weaker.
Anyway, then I'll refine the code to make it captioned. And I have two more ideas for improvement:
1. to make it possible to see the unformed ray. Now the ray is displayed, which has been irrevocably defined and is not redrawn. I will probably do this: if you enter in the BeamNumber 0 ray number, it will be displayed this unfinished piece of ZigZag. Full analogy with the 0 bar, which is also unfinished.
2. Make an option to enlarge the fractal. That is, build a ZigZag from the channel borders where the peak of a new enlarged ZigZag (fractal) will be a peak of the upper channel border, and the trough will be a trough of the lower border. Here's where I've marked the idea in the picture (green is the new peak, red is the new trough):
In short, like this:
Added captions to the levels. Fig.1 shows Fibo corrections on the 4th ray (ShowFibo=1, BeamNumber=4) - labels are in place. And to hell with them. What a Binom of Newton, man! - I searched in the properties setup and... didn't find it. I'm a stranger. I posted it in the newbie thread. (Thanks to Sorento for the tip. )))
On the 0 ray. If ZigZag output is specified (ShowZigZag=1), the 0th unformed ray is dashed. Formed definitively and irrevocably - solid.
You can also bind objects to the 0th unfinished by specifying BeamNumber=0 (sn.2). Just in case, the object in this case is drawn purple (blue on formed beams).
I didn't make the fractal enlargement fixture. And not because it is difficult (nothing complicated), just because it will be overloaded with fractals. And to a little bit to other theme already.
===
Unfortunately, I have no possibility to check redrawing of the 0-th ray in the flow - Sat. (geez!), but it seems everything should work properly. So here is the code.
===
As is always the case when adding code not quite intended for it, the code structure becomes wild. It has to be cleaned up. But it works correctly. Maybe later. Anyway, I copied it as it is.
Yes, I am aware of Pastukhov. As I recall, he justified the value of 1/2 as a watershed between a pullback or breakout game for one particular zigzag. "The theorem is equivalent to the impossibility to create a trade-sufficient zigzag, i.e. it is more general. However, to go to this more general hypothesis requires not so much genius as pessimism :). Nevertheless, I believe it is useful to test each new zigzag against this criterion :)
Note, it is the refutation of the "theorem" that is now proposed to be talked about. Since a zigzag with inbuilt correct definition of context will be self-sufficient for trading :)
Pastukhov proved the value of 1/2 for kagi and renko zigzags and a random process with zero MO. I don't remember his formulation, but the point boils down to this. And his suggestions for game strategy in cases greater than and less than 1/2 are corollaries.
Kagi and Renko are construction algorithms, they are not tied to trading in any way. I think the result would be similar for any algorithm that is formal and has no criteria relevant to trading interests.
As for the "zig-zag with inbuilt correct context definition" trade, it simply isn't needed. If you, Nicholas, have a way of properly defining context, then that's good enough for trading. But you can, of course, build a zigzag on it as well. One has to admire something. :-)
My posts, like precious wines, will have their turn. ("Scattered in the dust of shops..." Akhmatova)
Well, I certainly won't die of modesty. That's good. )))
Actually it's by Tsvetaeva. It's called "To My Poems."
Yeah. My mistake. (I keep thinking of Akhmatov's "Your mind is affected by arrogance, so you can't see the light..." and that's why I pissed myself.)
Thank you for the correction!
As for the "zig-zag with proper context definition built in" trade, it simply isn't needed. If you, Nikolai, have a way of correctly defining context, then that is quite enough for trading. But you can, of course, build a zigzag on it as well. One has to admire something. :-)
That's not exactly how I remember it. Pastukhov's construction algorithm is at the same time a source of trading signals. That is, he considers quite a specific trading strategy resulting from the algorithm and his conclusions refer to it. Well, maybe I have forgotten something, I will not insist.
The zigzag is only a marking. Signals are primary. The markup in the form of a zigzag may be compared to any set of signals. And the "slippage" of this zigzag will be an important characteristic of this set, i.e. of the algorithm that generates it.
"Thy mind is affected by arrogance, and therefore thou knowest not the light..."
Yes. A woman, it would seem, who has nothing to do with knowledge, but...
It's not without reason that a true poet is always a prophet.
Unless, of course, the word "light" is taken literally. :-)
The zigzag and right is just a marking. It is the signals that are primary. Just a zigzag marking can be matched to any set of signals. And the "slippage" of that zigzag will be an important characteristic of that set, i.e. the algorithm that generates them.
In general, the "slope" is rather a characteristic of the oscillator (any algorithm underlying the zigzag markup is an oscillator, or can be such). And the zigzag pattern itself is just a zigzag pattern.
I don't remember it quite like that. Pastukhov's construction algorithm is also a source of trading signals. That is, he considers a particular trading strategy resulting from the algorithm and his conclusions refer to it. Well, maybe I have forgotten something, I will not insist.
The zigzag is only a marking. Signals are primary. The markup in the form of a zigzag may be compared to any set of signals. And the "slippage" of this zigzag will be an important characteristic of this set, i.e. the algorithm generating them.
The algorithm for creating a zigzag is elementary: a new down segment starts from the given top C0 of the up segment, if the current price reaches C<=C0-H and C0 is a maximum in this segment. It is the other way round for the down reversal. So where are the trading signals here ? Renko is not much more complicated and is also solely based on flat BP price geometry. So I can't agree with you, alas.
If you build a zigzag, then only on the basis of a formal algorithm. But in this case it hardly makes sense to expect anything from it forming a profit. If I want to build a trading strategy, then all variants are good as long as I get results. :-)
... if the current price reaches the value C<=C0-H ...
This is the signal. And it was by these signals that Shepherd "entered" and "exited". More precisely, he "flipped out". For this was the strategy he was looking at. If I remember correctly :) .