Hidden divergence - page 9
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
The man (s2101) explained, chewed it up, and put it in his mouth. It would seem that all that is left to do is to swallow and digest.
An unfortunate choice of terms (i.e. a faulty definition of entities in Occam's sense) leads to the fact that much of the "theory" is reduced to rake-avoidance rules. That is, to an unwarranted proliferation of axioms. Or dogmas. It is almost impossible to state the informative part of the "theory" briefly and clearly after that. Personally, this is the situation I associate with confusion. No wonder that on a theory consisting mainly of dogma there are mostly scholastic arguments. Man (s2101) firstly insists on the use of ambiguously defined terms (divergence and convergence) in exactly his interpretation, and then begins to explain that these very terms do not carry any useful information on the subject under discussion. At the same time he defends them quite aggressively. And in search of informative part he is forced to refer to his own articles. Just a few quotes in support of what has been said.
I.e. in the same trend the divergence signals can be both counter-trend and trend signals. The same applies to convergence signals.
...
In order to avoid confusion, it is better to distinguish between signals as trend signals and counter-trend signals.
...
The divergence (convergence) signals are generated absolutely identically (equally) against the trend and with the trend.
...
About wording. A wording that accurately reflects the essence of the subject is more than worthless to change.
...
You don't have to do anything to avoid confusion - you just have to stick to the generally accepted terminology.
In order to avoid confusion, it is necessary to stick to adequate terminology. If it does not exist, it must be agreed upon. In particular, symmetry of the phenomenon under discussion requires that cases of equal and different signs of line slopes must be distinguished. And whether these lines belong to leading or trailing price extremums. (For an up trend, highs will be leading extrema, while lows will be sliding ones. For a down trend, it is vice versa). So four terms need to be agreed upon.
I am aware that there are "off-trends" here. I can't suggest anything - you need to get used to it.
That's a good one.)
2 Prival: It's the divergence statistics that my picture refers to :).
can I go into more detail here?
You can, but private oz-@mail.ru. If you agree to become a member of the Strategy Club.
rider 16.07.2008
there's also this
--------
Are you from here http://finansovyj-dozor.narod.ru/links_Klub_Strategij.html?
--------
And again about terms - the word Divergence can be used as a notion of inconsistency (lack of similarity) between the data (graphs) being analysed. That is why very often Convergence as a type of Divergence is called Divergence.
------
I don't like the aggression of (s2101) either, but I strongly welcome his materials and in general any opinions (defended within the limits of decency) on this topic. I very much hope that the thread becomes a library of links to materials on Divergence (in the concept of Divergence i.e. Convergence too).
With all due respect to the "common terminology" presented by s2101, Alexander Elder has a different opinion on this matter.
<<When prices rise to a new high and the MACD-histogram stops at a lower value, a Bearish Divergence is formed (Figure 19). A smaller rise in the MACD-histogram indicates that the bulls are internally weak, in spite of high prices. When the bulls are exhausted, the bears are ready to take the initiative. A bearish divergence between the MACD-histogram and prices indicates the weakness of the market top. It gives a sell signal when most players feel the excitement of a breakout to new tops!
As long as prices are making lows and the MACD-histogram keeps falling lower, this confirms a downtrend. If prices have fallen to a new lowand the MACD-histogram is not as low as before, a BullishDivergence has occurred. It indicates that prices are falling inertia, the bears are weaker than they look, and the bulls are about to take the initiative. The bullish divergence between prices and the MACD-histogram indicates the strength in the market day. It gives a buy signal when most players are confused by a decline to a new low!
Alexander Elder "Fundamentals of Exchange Trading".
....
Personally, I like this terminology better!
Another thing is when the oscillator makes a lower low and the price stops at a higher value...
A full description of this kind of definition(solidarity with Mine and Elder's) is on "CROWFRE" in the "Hidden Divergences" thread.
If anyone finds a new kind (NOT the name) of divergence of price and oscillator readings, write! I'd really like to see and study it.
this is the classic I showed in the picture https://forum.mql4.com/ru/13925/page4
don't know why s2101 interpreted the concepts upside down
Look in the centre of your picture, you called convergence as divergence, and you called divergence as convergence. I.e. it is vice versa. I'll repeat it once again: 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 needed to go back to it?
Well now I understand - you just mixed up the phenomena
I perceive the description of divergence as described by CLASSIC
In your perception it turns out that ELDER doesn't know where the divergence is
You can, but please contact oz-@mail.ru. If you agree to become a member of the Strategy Club.
rider 16.07.2008
there is also this
--------
Are you from here http://finansovyj-dozor.narod.ru/links_Klub_Strategij.html?
--------
And again about terms - the word Divergence can be used as a notion of inconsistency (lack of similarity) between the data (graphs) being analysed. That is why very often Convergence as a type of Divergence is called Divergence.
------
I don't like the aggression (s2101) either, but I strongly welcome his material and in general any opinions (defended within the limits of decency) on this topic. I very much hope that the topic will become a library of references to materials on Divergence (in the sense of Divergence i.e. Convergence too).
- I agree :)..... I will definitely write
- honestly, I don't remember where the word came from, I searched through the search engines and got it somewhere.... there was another one, in general, ready-made strategy, but somewhere saved so that no way to find :))
Materials, indeed, brilliance - a new fresh look, not even satisfied with aggression, and assumptions such as "I said so" (even though demonstrated on one or two examples - such examples on books uncountable).... justification, in any case, need.
As for terms, there is not much "divergence" between price and oscillator (not considering equality - nuances)
Trend Up:
- price showed a new high - indicator no: possible reversal (analysis of course :))
- The price did not show a new minimum - indicator yes: with a very high probability - continuation of trend Up
Dn trend - exactly the opposite.
Does getting hung up on something like "local", "latent" .... divergence, convergence, covvergence etc....... does it make sense to trade?
Are we engineers or do we believe in fairy tales?
Interesting. What tool was obtained and what?
-----
rider 16.07.2008 11:45
Does getting bogged down in something like, "local", "latent" .... divergence, convergence, covvergence etc....... does it make sense to trade?
I agree - it does not, but it is important for enriching your knowledge
Korey 16.07.2008 11:53
I will remind Elder - "Technical Analysis - Applied Mass Psychology" Abstracts
Why bother)))) The divergence in the pictures is a parasitic property of the indicator, it is not a ""property of the market"" and much less a pattern...
Are we engineers or do we believe in fairy tales?
the nice thing about the phenomenon is that either reversals or bounces are formed in these places
Why bother)))) The divergence in the pictures is a parasitic property of the indicator, it is not a ""market property"" and certainly not a pattern...
Are we engineers or do we believe in fairy tales?
Anyone do the math? :)
Interesting. What tool was used to obtain and what?
A specially written indicator records the required data. Then this data is further processed in Matlab and similar images are drawn there. I'm not prepared to discuss this in detail, it's just a matter of hints. If anyone has their own variations on the subject as a result and also reports them vaguely, I'll consider my goal achieved :).