MACHINE period with minus value - page 14
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
The MA, my dear friends, sits on the core of the inertial cannon.
The momentum of the force exerted by the price gives direction to the MA.
The MA silly-minded MA never keeps up with the price, even with the most fractional period.
BUT sometimes it overtakes the price :)))
Happy new year!
Success to all in the new year.
Well, there's a reason it was mentioned here and a complex one.) True, this only works for EMA - then the real part of the period will determine the damping and the imaginary part the oscillatory component. But it works in principle.
What for?! You bastard... )))
Why would you do that?! You bastard... )))
Oops. Was that a secret?(((.
Oops. Was that a secret?(((.
That's not it. No, what a secret! That's not what I mean.
Don't I have anything to occupy my mind with?
))) Apparently not. If I'm gonna do this shit.
===
Okay. Urgent New Year's Eve celebration. One more time. :D
Given the mathematical meaning of MA and TS's ideas on the last two pages, if we take the current price as "zero level" (which makes the most sense to me), we can get "some MA", but it will not be MA with a negative period (because it is an average on bars from "antimir"), but "some MA that is put aside on the other side of the price...". Calculation on each bar will be: Suppose the trend is upwards, the MA goes under the price (current price - MA = X pips), then "some MA that lies on the other side of the price..." = current price + X pips = current price + (current price - MA on the current bar)
*Probably, the current price should be considered an opener, so that "some MA does not jerk every tick".
* in a downward trend similar thoughts
what do you think?
I think you're thinking right, especially if the calculations are correct as in the example screenshot from the post below...
But I remind you, everything should happen without shifts from the current price, which was cut off by the author of the screenshot, and this is unacceptable!
P/S Apologies for the long absence.... Happy New Year to all !!! ;)
The answer is -2 apples. A grandmother from the anti-world.
That's right!
Here you go
:)
Sps, but how would you apply this, where would you put it or what would you replace it with to check the result?
Sps, but how would you apply it, where to put it or what to replace it with to check the result?
"It won't fit in the jug..."
Are you serious? Well, I'm not the only postmodernist around here. So I didn't drown sugar over absinthe for nothing.
But don't sign me. I'll just... ...from the outside... )))
"if we take the current price as "zero", this would be iMa(1), the waving of period 1.
2*iMa(1) - iMa(P) will just lie on the other side of the price compared to iMa(P), the waving of period P. See post (01.01.2013 02:29), there the right formula was presented.
The delta between price and iMa(P) is {iMa(1) - iMa(P)} , the same distance will be between {2*iMa(1) - iMa(P)} and the current price iMa(1). Subtract the second from the first. The indicator here was posted by Avals (01.01.2013 08:14), Len2 put 1 (or 2) instead of 5. And desired period instead of 14.
"It won't fit in the jug..."
Are you serious? Well, I'm not the only postmodernist around here. So I didn't drown sugar over absinthe for nothing.
But don't sign me. I'll just... ...from the outside... )))
Honestly, I haven't even seen your iFMA.mq4 , it's just my own thoughts ;) but it's not what you have, at least the result is not perfect for my idea =)