How to explain to the customer that virtually all indicators are overridden - page 6
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
All this is absolutely correct.
Where is "right" and "absolutely".
Take this definition:
A non redrawing indicator after its initialisation can only change the 0th bar with the arrival of a new tick. All other indicators will refer to redrawing indicators.
-and apply it to fractal, to Zig-Zag -- there are more graphical indicators that are based on multi-bar patterns
-- and you will realize at once that this definition is just a special case, although it fits most indicators
Video is more illustrative :) But tests are also possible.
I'd watch such an epic video too - redrawing EMA from Open prices for example (to drop the 0th bar)...
So where is "right", and also "absolutely".
Take this definition:
A non redrawing indicator after its initialisation can only change the 0th bar with the arrival of a new tick. All other indicators will refer to redrawing indicators.
-and apply it to fractal, to Zig-Zag -- there are more graphical indicators that are based on multi-bar patterns
-- and you will see at once that this definition is just a special case, although suitable for most indicators
So where is the "right" and also "absolutely".
Take this definition:
A non redrawing indicator after its initialisation can only change the 0th bar with the arrival of a new tick. All other indicators will refer to redrawing indicators.
-and apply it to fractal, to Zig-Zag -- there are more graphical indicators that are based on multi-bar patterns
-- and you will realize at once that this definition is just a special case, although suitable for the majority of indicators
In fact I reckon ZZ to redrawing ones according to this rule and so do dynamic digital filters, caterpillars, butterfly-type patterns and etc. And fractal belongs to re-drawing ones because the signal appears "retrospectively".
By the way, your example with the indicator that accumulated statistics does not belong to re-drawing because after initialization it does not change its values on bars other than 0. The problem there was that it was not used correctly (due to incomplete information given by the author, so it's the author's fault). And after initialisation ALL indicators are recalculated FULLY.
Therefore, all the same, I believe that the rule is suitable for all indicators.
The problem is not with the AUTHOR of this information product, the problem is with the FUCKING USER of this product, because testing, optimization and configuration has not been canceled. And to shift your shortcomings on the AUTHOR is to sign your stupidity!
Er... comrade! It's not about you in this case.
As for you, be kind and provide FULL information about your products, including about indicator re-rating. And the fact that you do not understand that you need to provide complete information so that users of the products to exploit them correctly, can be interpreted as a manifestation of stupidity, clearly.
Actually, I personally refer ZZ to redrawing according to this rule, as well as dynamic digital filters, all kinds of caterpillars, pattern butterflies, etc. And fractal belongs to re-drawing ones because the signal appears "retrospectively".
By the way, your example with the indicator that accumulated statistics does not belong to re-drawing because after initialization it does not change its values on bars other than 0. The problem there was that it was not used correctly (due to incomplete information given by the author, so it's the author's fault). And after initialization ALL indicators are recalculated FULLY.
That's why I think that this rule fits to all indicators.
Because you consider only one bar constructions. The price chart is a one bar chart. All other indicators are based on price chart.
If you read the topicstarter's first post:
-- here Yura, saying that MA overdraws, is partially right. But he's right that he feels something, not in the essence of understanding overdrawing. If the MA is drawn on a period of 14, then it turns out that the MA is 14-bar construction. Only the result of calculation of this 14-bar structure is written at the 14th last bar. And when this structure is formed, the MA will not be re-drawn by the already formed structure. And the overdrawing is not a bar (as in your definition), but a construction overdrawing.
A standard fractal is a 5-bar structure, the result of which is plotted on the central bar. So when a fractal is formed, it is shown on bar number 2. And when a new bar opens, the fractal from the bar number 2 will go to the bar number 3, the fractal construction will be formed and will not be shown again.
The Zig-Zag has an -- N-bar construction -- it doesn't have a fixed number of bars to build each edge. But the principle still holds. Once the Zig-Zag construction "edge" is formed, it is no longer redrawn.
In my example -- the indicator had a 1000 bar construction. But as a new bar came in, the 1000-bar design became 1001-bar, then 1002-bar, etc. But if you compare it to the Zig-Zag, where the design is floating. So if you put a Zig-Zag on the graph, no matter how you put it, the already formed edge will not change. But in my example, it will. This is the behaviour of a redrawing indicator.
I can give other examples, like candlestick patterns, channels, boxes, etc.
Therefore, when we define re-risking, we should not speak about bars but about bar constructions. And we should introduce the understanding of a formed and unformed bar structure. If the last bar structure is formed and doesn't change at the appearance of new bars, this indicator doesn't concern the overbidding one.
The definition needs to be thought over, but the gist is approximately as I stated it.
Er... comrade! This is not about you in this case.
And as for you specifically, be kind and provide FULL information about your products, including indicator re-rating. And the fact that you don't understand that you have to provide complete information for the users of the products to exploit them correctly, can be interpreted as a manifestation of stupidity, unequivocally.
This "boy", or maybe even child, does not understand simple things: he does not see the difference between the CUSTOMER MARKET, where all products must comply with GOSTs, certificates and regulations, and the FINANCIAL MARKET, where no one has given or will give ANY WARRANTIES on any products for that market.
The boy has not yet understood where he is...
I mean, how to explain? In words :) You could write a volume of enlightening speeches and refer everyone to it in case of some misunderstanding... but do you need it? )
People sometimes can't tell the difference between an indicator and an EA, and you make them think about such lofty things as re-rating
This "boy", or maybe even child, does not understand simple things: he does not see the difference between a CUSTOMER MARKET, where all products must comply with GOSTs, certificates and regulations, and a FINANCIAL MARKET, where no one has given or will give ANY WARRANTIES on any products for that market.
The boy has not yet understood where he is...
What guarantees are you talking about?!
And in general, according to you, if people work in the financial market, they can be fooled into thinking that some of the functionality of the products is silent? You are talking like a typical crook, a thief, don't you understand that?