Hidden divergence - 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
to s2101
We look through the prism of MTS, i.e. the algorithm that can be implemented at least probabilistically.
So don't be surprised)))
to s2101
That is why your suggestion
It seems to me that it is the 'programmer-technician problem' that is unsolvable for most programmers'.
is correct.
And due to the fact that you don't want to 'automate' your 'technology' and local verbiage arises. (If you had offered n-twenty quid, you would have become 'good' immediately.) First of all, there are coders gathered here (in general, it is a swear word, like animation - 'reproduction' and animation - 'revival') or the opposite extreme, who either look for 'analytical basis' to calculate the next tick', or 'formulae/market model' in general. And without that, there's no way to make money.
And to "be a reasonable person and think about the beauty of their nails" - alas ... not so many.
:(
In the end, everything comes down to the fact that the terms and definitions diverge, therefore, all nonsense.
:(
It's all sad. :(
SZY. Personally, I, for example, try to rewrite mentioned here (or in a parallel branch) FX5_Divergence.mq4 as a script to output the "embodied divergence values" and to apply "the only true science" to them).
Well, where is the analytical basis for the prediction: "Under normal conditions at temperatures below freezing, water will turn to ice" ?
...
Right - it's outside that statement.
And their water is salty. Muddy)))
About the purity of the material. There are no names on the indicators in the pictures.
About credibility. Divergences are more reliable and are determined at the SECOND troughs (tops), when they are both below the 0-line, or above the 0-line (or middle, for example 50). It is possible to find the charts, where absolutely all corrections occur after the Divergence signal.
It is also possible to select the sensitivity of the indicator. However it is nothing more than a fitting.
Again I bring up the exit question.
What do you have to say about it?
= ...when they are both below the 0 line or above the 0 line ( or the average, e.g. 50).
In determining by MACD_H, (9,21,5 - which I gave as a compromise between accuracy and sensitivity) is a gross error, after which it is inappropriate (useless) to talk about understanding the question.
= It is possible to select charts, where absolutely all corrections occur after the Divergence signal. It is also possible to select the sensitivity of the indicator. But it is nothing more than a fitting.
And you try to do it during the whole day and at current prices and demonstrate it on dozens of consecutive screenshots. And I'll see what you get. (And the article shows the entire working (market) day sequentially, with charts at current prices.
=I bring up the issue of exit once again. What do you have to say about it?
The articles pinpoint entry/exit points at real market prices (not history) at any timeframe.
I like guys who ask "professional" questions about materials without reading or understanding them. Try reading (understanding) and the question will fall away.
There are four articles on ' Hate Pipsing.' and this question was asked there. I responded that if after a few readings the entry/exit question is not clear to the reader, he (the reader) is totally unprepared to absorb the material.
I will now add,
-this reader has big problems with the basics of thechanalysis; or
-no problems with thechanalysis due to the lack of the latter.
(Ind[1] - Ind[k])*(Close[k]-Close[1]) < 0
I do not go into the difficult to formalize concepts of local extrema and the subtleties of the differences between "di," "co-," and "con". But the problem remains the same: on what analytical properties of the Close[] function do we base our conclusion that a reversal is likely in the future (not covered by this formula)? And the second, most important question: what do we need to do to make our conclusions valid?
2 Candid & Korey: water is physics, not mathematics, you know. In a series of Close[] - what physics?
2 s2101: you have honestly just intrigued me. I hope the articles you posted will temper my skeptical ardour...
"Under normal conditions, at temperatures below freezing, water will turn to ice" ?
Personally, I prefer to take my hands out of the previous ... "aggregate state of matter" ... divergence, I guess... temperature and instincts. :)
"Analytically unsound pattern recognition" ... fuck them :)
= ...when they are both either below the 0 line or above the 0 line ( or average, e.g. 50).=
When determining by MACD_H, (9,21,5 - which I gave as a compromise between accuracy and sensitivity) is a gross error, after which it is inappropriate (useless) to talk about understanding the issue.
= It is possible to select charts, where absolutely all corrections occur after the Divergence signal. It is also possible to select the sensitivity of the indicator. But it is nothing more than a fitting.
And you try to do it during the whole day and at current prices and demonstrate it on dozens of consecutive screenshots. And I'll see what you get. (And the article shows the whole working (market) day sequentially, with charts at current prices.
=I bring up the issue of exit once again. What do you have to say about it?
The articles determine the entry/exit points at real market prices (not on history) at any timeframe with pinpoint accuracy.
I like guys asking "professional" questions about materials without reading or understanding them. Try reading (understanding) and the question will fall away.
There are four articles on ' Hate Pipsing.' and this question was asked there. I responded that if after a few readings the entry/exit question is not clear to the reader, he (the reader) is totally unprepared to absorb the material.
I will now add,
-this reader has big problems with the basics of thechanalysis; or
-no problems with thechanalysis due to the lack of the latter.
Again, I am talking about credibility and practical value, not scholarly or copywrite.
Where else but on history do you show everything we see.
I don't see the names of the classic indicators and their parameters in the drawings.
Therefore I do not believe in reliability. If you claim truth in a scientific sense then be consistent and correct. I support your work, but as your efforts, not as the truth in the last resort.
Don't absolutize the indicators of inertia and graphical material of history, and the Tehanalysis is just "practical mass psychology".
Also - be a bit more civilised. Take it down a notch. You know nothing about my knowledge. Re-read at least your posts. I cannot be offended you can only insult. But then the answer would be adequate.
On what analytical properties of the Close[] function do we base our conclusion that a reversal is likely in the future (not covered by this formula)? And the second and most important question: what do we need to do to make our conclusions valid?
These are exactly the questions I've asked in previous posts as well. And we cannot speak at all about the practical value of reversal signals. We may speak about signals confirming trends (with a certain probability such as a Hidden D-Q), because adherents of Classic Technical Analysis (this is for 2 s2101) strongly recommend to work with trends and not to catch reversals that supposedly predict divergence signals.
One point of my previous post where Geronimo wrote: "About the purity of the material. There are no names on those indicators in the pictures.
About credibility. Divergences are more reliable and are detected on the SECOND troughs (tops) when they are both below the 0-line, or above the 0-line (or average, for example 50)", and I called it a gross error, not to be unfounded, I will clarify.
In the chart below the divergence signal (namely, the divergence) by trend (green lines) is absolutely usual and clear. But the first divergence signal (namely the divergence) by trend (white lines) is unusual. In it, the minima on the indicator chart correspond to the minima on the price chart, which are on opposite sides of the indicator zero line.
I want to emphasize for everyone: - do not consider the zero line of the indicator when determining the divergence (or convergence) signals on the charts.
In the chart, the MACD_H (OsMA) indicator, or rather its analogue FX5_Divergence with parameters 9, 21, 5 is used as the divergence indicator.
Geronimo =Where else but on the history you show everything that we see.
In the articles, all pictures are taken at the current market price at the time of shooting, which can be seen on any chart, and which the articles warn you about.
That's the problem with programmer-technical analysis.
Blind man - let him see, deaf man - let him hear.
But the problem remains the same: on what analytical properties of the Close[] function do we base our conclusion that a reversal is likely in the future (not covered by this formula)? And the second and most important question: what do we need to do to make our conclusions valid?
The answer to the first question: none. The conclusion is based on Newton's 1st law: if forex is not acted upon by news, influential statements, interventions and the like, the current trend will continue. For a while. So all this is an intuitive perception of the inertia of phenomena, which, it must be said, has some basis in fact.
The answer to the second question is to prove or disprove the existence of inertia in the market.
2 s2101: You have honestly just intrigued me. I hope the articles you posted will temper my sceptical fervour...
Looking at all this reminds me of Alex Niroba. He was also a fighter for the omnipotence of wave theory. By the way, he had some reasons for this, he really got into EWT, formulated some ideas, calculated using them and even successfully traded on the demo. The only problem - all this complex was completely unformalizable. Therefore, like with MA crossing condition, the main reason for trading remains uncovered - in Alex's mind.
I think the situation is the same here. The articles offered by respected s2101 contain a lot of pictures and words. Unfortunately, all these words and pictures refer to individual cases. If you try to take it all as a ready-made generalization, problems and unanswered questions will come pouring out of the horn of plenty. And the author himself, apparently, cannot generalize and formalize it. That's probably why he came here as a Guru and not as an MTS customer. But that's okay. Alex liked to slap and swear too. It is understandable - the great ones are few and must be appreciated. :-)
1. and Techanalysis is just "practical mass psychology" and the apologists of Classical Teganalysis strongly recommend
a kind of contradiction.
2. IF
s2101 is not a coder
coders are busy with agreements on terms
I personally find it difficult to write the code for finding "local extrema" and synchronizing them (extrema) for different "indicators
TO
stalemate, i.e. there will be no statistics.
:(