ZigZags Shepherds - page 10
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
This is the result of determining the difference between the extremes as a function of the change in the threshold value for Kagi's ZZ. Figure b)-cumulative curve.
Same for Renko's ZZ.
I notice an interesting feature: the Chi-squared distribution:
See, at k=1, there is a similarity to Kagi's ZZ, at k=2, exponent, exactly the same as in Renko's ZZ graph.
The Chi-square distribution tends to normal as k increases.
To be honest, I haven't investigated ZigZags...
But, if it can be argued that the market is dominated by the Laplace distribution (or rather the double geometric distribution), then the sum of the numbers with the Laplace distribution is what gives the xi-squared, which tends to be normal with increasing k.
By the way, I've read a lot of posts on ZigZags - many people use themonly for their ability to work with HIGH and LOW extrema, believing that they can "hit" the best entry point. Right?
many use themonly for the opportunity to work with HIGH and LOW extrema believing they will manage to "hit" the best entry point. Right?
imho wrong, of the 4 available prices (Open,Close,High,Low) only High and Low show the price, while Open (aka Close) is time-based and does not always show the price, but only the speed over a period of time
In other words, High and Low are unique in their essence, while Open(Close) is stochastic in nature since the time discreteness is not related to the price movement
imho wrong, of the 4 available prices (Open,Close,High,Low) only High and Low show the price, while Open (aka Close) is time-based and does not always show the price, but only the speed over a period of time
In other words, High and Low are unique in their essence, while Open(Close) is stochastic in nature since the discreteness of time is not related to the price movement
I would argue the opposite, Open and Close are inherently unique, all trading volumes passed there. High and Low are random spikes, and most often due to lack of liquidity - momentary panic
I would argue otherwise, in fact Open and Close are unique, all trading volumes passed there. High and Low are random spikes, and most often due to lack of liquidity - a momentary panic
you can argue forever, but if you see High and Low on the chart, it means that these prices have been quoted, and we can only guess whether there were volumes or no orders at all
And one more thing: the volumes do not always move the market, sometimes there are no volumes and the price changes, and the trend can even "break" with minimal volumes
imho, I'm still a supporter of the Dow's theory"in an uptrend (in a downtrend), every subsequent peak and every downtrend must be higher (lower) than the previous one", Open (Close) prices don't always show this trend, but High and Low will show the trend.... sorry about the history ))))
Still, lest the subject again slip into oblivion - why were you so attracted to Pastukhov's thesis? Did you see any positive results of TC built on this theory?
Have you seen positive results from someone else's TS built on this theory?
The Wissim's experience in testing TS should not be wasted - why not start offering this service to traders?
And maybe something interesting will turn up along the way.
But of course all sorts of noises, distributions, moving average and other scientific tricks must be strictly forgotten, as well as almost everything else that is taught in various educational institutions (multiplication table, don't forget).
I would argue otherwise, in fact Open and Close are unique, all trading volumes passed there. High and Low are random spikes and most often due to lack of liquidity - momentary panic
Aren't Open, Close, High and Low the same thing but at different times? It didn't happen at the same time.
Open and Close are random variables within the interval; they do not have any meaning from the very beginning. Only the extrema make sense.
Open and Close are random values inside an interval, and there is no sense in them from the very beginning. Only extremums make sense...
There is no surprise that both High Low within an interval are random variables. It is important to find the maximum ones. That's what the ZZ is designed to do. What is deeply disappointing about LA is that it was originally based on an algorithm that was not entirely successful.
We can argue forever, but if the chart has High and Low, it means that these prices have been quoted, and we can only guess whether there were open positions or no orders at all
And one more thing: the volumes do not always move the market, sometimes there are no volumes and the price changes, and the trend can even "break" with minimal volumes
imho, I'm still a supporter of the Dow's theory"in an uptrend (in a downtrend), every subsequent peak and every downtrend must be higher (lower) than the previous one", Open (Close) prices do not always show this trend, but High and Low will show the trend.... sorry for the history ))))
We don't see volumes as such. Full stop.
The volumes that we see on the chart of our terminals, is the reaction of brokerage companies. But they are usually wrong. So, we can forget about them or, more precisely, forget about them.