Hidden divergence - page 5
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 classify the way technical analysis is done, not arbitrarily as you do.
The TA has an unambiguous interpretation which corresponds to its designation DIVERGENCE, CONVERGENCE.
Divergence means divergence (i.e. all signals when lines connecting extrema on the price chart and their corresponding extrema on the indicator chart Diverge, i.e. the distance between lines increases from left to right) and
Convergence means convergence (i.e. all signals when lines connecting extrema on the price chart and their corresponding extrema on the indicator chart converge, i.e. from left to right distance between lines decreases).
In my opinion, it can not be simpler.
On the left is Divergence, and on the right is Convergence.
So this is what I was talking about and what I drew
and the indicator I showed - is exactly the way to distinguish the divergence from the convergence
--
Of course it doesn't distinguish between them perfectly - there are flaws
but in most cases it is
It is true that the settings may be different - I think this is understandable and therefore there may be conflicts
---
I really do not understand why you think I do this arbitrarily
this picture is exactly the same as the classic, but it is not the same as your description, i.e. the CLASSIC is not the same as your interpretation
----
OPREDUCTED!!!!
This is an interesting topic. I would like to clarify.
The convergence of the lines assumes the same scale and the Y scale itself. If this is not the case (probably in most cases), then a question arises.
Suppose the picture shows both dashes downwards. What is it - divergence or convergence? The assumption is that the user can arbitrarily change the vertical scale on either graph (i.e. by changing the slope angles both convergence and divergence can be drawn)
--
Do you use any concepts (and perhaps quantify them) for cases of "unidirectional" dots -- both down or both up?
In "The Little Trader's Encyclopaedia" (Eric L. Nyman), all cases of mutual positioning of the price lines and the oscillator, including parallel downward and parallel upward, are considered. The latter cases are interpreted as a strong downward trend and a strong upward trend.
Interesting questions - one gets the impression that the basics of thechanalysis have not been studied. Read the definition of divergence and convergence. If there is neither divergence nor convergence, there is no signal.
As for the scale - try to do what you said.
There is nothing to try. Here.
I meant the wording. Apparently, it is more correct to speak not of convergence/divergence of lines, but of positive and negative gradient between vertices.
--
Regarding your statement ("Divergence (conv) signals are always performed on any frame and are never false. False can be their illiterate interpretation." ), it intrigues me. If it's your will, I'd be interested to hear your arguments for this statement. If there are any statistics or test results and if it's not a secret, it would be interesting to see.
Please don't take this post as an objection.
More. Are your articles only on forums or is there some kind of website (magazine)? If so, please give me a link.
There's nothing to try. Here.
There is no divergence or convergence in your screenshot. Or rather, there is, but not in the place you marked )))).
There is no divergence or convergence in your screenshot. Well, there is, but not in the place you marked )))).
>> Of course not.
- Divergence is a "Hidden" divergence and is the GRAAL, as it allows you to work on the trend.
could you please explain what you call a divergence
---
the fact that, for example in an uptrend, there are almost no buy divergences, but there are plenty of convergences - it is clear and visible
you call "hidden divergence" - convergence?
----
it is perfectly clear that there are fewer divergences than convergences in the uptrend
As a rule, the best entries on the trend are entries on the covvergences and divergences - of course on the trend
So this is what I was talking about and what I drew
the indicator I showed distinguishes between divergences and convergences
i really do not understand why you think i do it arbitrarily
as for the figure above, everything coincides with the classic and your description
Look in the centre of your picture, you called convergence a divergence and you called divergence a convergence. That is exactly the opposite. Divergence is a Divergence of price and indicator lines. But in your place marked "Divergence", the lines are CONNECTING. And the two extreme signals on the right are correctly labelled Convergence.
Is it so hard to see that that you need to go back to it?
In "The Little Trader's Encyclopaedia" (Eric L. Nyman), all cases of mutual positioning of the price lines and the oscillator, including parallel downward and parallel upward, are considered. The latter cases are treated as a strong downward trend and a strong upward trend.
Do you not remember what we were talking about? Let me remind you, we were talking about divergence (convergence) signals, not about oscillators in general.
There's nothing to try. Here.
I meant the wording. Apparently, it's more correct to talk not about the convergence/divergence of lines, but about the positive and negative gradient between vertices.
So? Did the direction of slope of your lines change when you change the scale?
About the wording. It is more than unreasonable to change the wording that accurately reflects the essence of the subject.
I do not understand, are there no worthy questions to discuss? And we do nonsense.