Hidden divergence - page 33
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 have a - "ordinate ratio".
It's just that many people, out of habit, approach topics like this as a ToR. Well, none of the "two authors" will formulate it (one is not interested, the other is probably not fully worked out the concept). Moreover, the theme of "non-monetary", And so nothing is "not documented.
And who is the second author? Geronimo is clear, he is the first.
All that I have read is one of the components of the system - divergence. Numerically it can be expressed as "ratio of ordinates of two ends of the line segment" (to be able to cross the price with MACD and not to repeatedly engage in flaming about "criminal scales".
We will obtain 2 numbers - for the price chart 0.95 - decrease, for the indicator chart - 1.06 - increase. (in the end - contraction). And further - either chart "these two numbers" as a function of, for example, "leading momentum", or subtract 1.06 from 0.95 and again as a function...
Understand - some traders use MANUAL drawn divergence in their MANUAL trading systems. So why not try to "cross a horse and a trembling doe". At least ... To collect statistics.
You did make a sound engineering point though. If you could support it with a drawing to make it clearer, we could move on.
To begin with, for the foundation, find a clear answer - what kind of information divergence provides.
Having found the information/divergence ratio on the trend, we could move forward more confidently. And there Elder with his 3D))
At this point (moment of DK) the indicator is lying.
At this point (DK moment) the indicator lies.
here is the moment of truth!
Who's looking for what....
I have it lying if Disregard DK, if inconvenient for today's timeframe,
and vice versa - Doesn't lie if set to pass the DK signals and look at the DK.
Who's the second? Geronimo is clear, he is the first.
s2101. His concept is finished and his examples of "markings" are innumerable. And there are some fresh ones (the discussion is on since February 2007).
You did sound a sensible engineering thought. You would have reinforced figure for clarity and could move on.
Yeah. You're baiting the TK. :) - No, I won't :) Especially since I read it between the lines and, therefore, have every right to be wrong :)
I will check myself (but very slowly) before jumping out with statements like "I just noticed that ... I opened an order yesterday and I'm already in the black" :)
(The price at the left point divided by the price at the right point. The MACD at the left point is divided by the MACD at the right point. Whether and how to convert these two numbers into one is a question. But if we plot the function (surface) of the "leading "something" as a function of these 2 numbers, maybe something will be visible).
Here is the moment of truth!
Who's looking for what....
I have it wrong if I don't consider DK, if it's an inconvenient TF for the day,
and vice versa - Doesn't lie if adjusted for DK signals and looking at DK.
s2101 suggested to consider only those ACs, which were formed simultaneously on all TFs from one hour and below, looking at H4 and above.
(He, however, had a reservation, they are still forming.... Probably, it is the connection of the left extremum point with Close[1] and MACD[1] correspondingly for the "higher TF").
IMHO. It would also be good for Geronimo
For a technical solution of the divergence we need a graphical tool which measures the indicator.
Question: do you have any formula for this graphical tool to measure the divergence of the indicator? )))))
I don't see what the problem is at all. Writing a divergence indicator is not very difficult technically. For example, here is a picture of my old "correct" divergence indicator. It is not difficult to reconfigure it to the hidden ones. Besides, we can replace the base indicator with a desired one.
It is essential that the arrows stand at the moments of fixing of the divergence fact.
P.S. I tried to sell this indicator to Geronimo, but it seems it does not fit him :). I can sell it to someone else :).
to Candid
The problem is filtering divergences.
s2101 has recommended parameters 9,21,5 in the OsMA oscillator. Look at the picture. Oscillator with these parameters, unlike oscillators with normal parameters,
it gives a false signal. I know in advance what he will say that we should look at other timeframes, other indicators and wave analysis. However, I have concluded for myself that it is better to use the original OsMA parameters. Let the oscillator give a signal later than a false signal that misleads. And then, these parameters have been verified by many years of historical experience.
to Candid
The problem is the divergence filtering.
I can't advise anything. You need to make hypotheses, write indicators on them, record statistics and work with them :). You can't manually "program" in a visualiser - you'll end up cheating yourself.