Elite indicators :) - page 145

New comment
 

Any Feedback welcome

Hello Mladen,

I know that you are busy with all of the requests from the forum; but when possible could you give me ANY kind of feedback on post # 1344 about the fractal indy. Just want to know if it's possible to program such a thing.

Your body of work is truly impressive.

Thanks in advance

Louis

 

Is This What You Are Looking For?

pipmagnet:
Hello Mladen,

I know that you are busy with all of the requests from the forum; but when possible could you give me ANY kind of feedback on post # 1344 about the fractal indy. Just want to know if it's possible to program such a thing.

Your body of work is truly impressive.

Thanks in advance

Louis

I think is what you asked for.

https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/general

 

Some answers

_________________________

It is like a contest sometimes : someone starts a trend ("everything is self-similar") and then everybody is trying to use or to solve it better than the previous one. Nothing bad in that (that is a natural process of learning) The question "are they right in their points of view" (the "their" are the names I mentioned) is more or less unanswerable : it is obvious that everything is self-similar, but can it be used in technical analysis is yet another issue that needs to be solved. I have read some serious studies that were pointing out that Hurst coefficient / Fractal dimensions can not be used in financial markets analysis and I have read those that were glorifying it, so ... Probably the truth is somewhere in the middle (as usual )

As of difference between Ehlers FD and Juriks CFB : completely different math. And, if I have to decide which one is more usable (even if I know the Ehlers one just for a day or two) I would say that CFB is built on a more solid base (even a look at it seems to be more logical, and, as you know from other section, using it in some other indicators for speeding up the reaction, is giving results that are useful at the least, which, implicitly, shows that CFB is valid)

And about "the Statement" : that statement is a "grail" of fractal dimensions - they all are based on a 1 to 2 range with a 1.5 as the "fuzzy" one (just to remind that 2-Hurst coefficient (so two minus Hurst coefficient) is FDI). So it is not the statement itself that is at question. I stated once at one of my posts that Ehlers statements should not be taken as 100% proven. He tends to rush in some of his statements, even if his work is of immense value, so we should always use our minds in determining if what he states is exactly that what he said or we need to find alternative ways of using indicators created by him

_________________________

regards

mladen

 

mladen or Doc, can you please post the CFB indicator.

Cheers and thanks,

San.

 
Snowski:
mladen or Doc, can you please post the CFB indicator.

Cheers and thanks,

San.

Dear San,

i suppose you're talking about this : CFB

Sorry i don't have it

Best regards

Doc

 

Yep, that's the one.

The statement that it's more precise than ADX makes me curious, as I use ADX to measure trend strength.

I've searched the forum, found CFB but read that it's not an indicator by itself, but rather code for use in other indicators. Confused now. Perhaps mladen can shed a light on this.

 

...

San,

I posted the CFB in the advanced elite section. Its usage is a bit different than the usual indicators. In short CFB is trying to determine if there is a trend (and it indicates it with a rising values / slope) It does not "tell" which is trend. Here is an example what CFB does (this is the least sensitive depth of CFB - the slowest one which I like to use for real trend finding) :
We also use CFB in some other indicators in order to make reversals (so signals by some indicators) faster. That usage was originally proposed by Mark Jurik, but even he had a strange way of using it (he used something he called "infinite length stochastic" - which is just another way of naming a repainting indicator) so we had to find a better way to use it

____________________________

As of the one that is floating around : it is just a basic function used by the CFB (the so called "cfbAux"), and, the way it was made, it even has an error in calculation (two values are totally confused in it). Apart from that error, the logic of CFB is completely missing from that indicator so it is (in the way it is available) pretty much useless. My guess is that no one made it for metatrader because of the buffers problems : depending on the depth or levels, this indicator uses well over 100 buffers for calculations (it is not even a fixed number - depends on depths).

regards

mladen

Files:
cfb.gif  27 kb
 

Thanks mladen, looks interesting. Might consider that "uber elite" membership after all...

So, in short, should I use/read this indicator as I would read the ADX Line?

I.e. as an indicator showing "trend strength" or am I cutting the power of CFB short here?

 

EMA cross support/resistance

bulliz:
Hi all,

I'm new to this beautiful elite section.

I need your help to create a very simple indicator.

When fast EMA(eg.20) crosses over slow EMA(eg.50) I need to draw an horizontal line on the High of the bar.

When fast EMA(eg.20) crosses under slow EMA(eg.50) I need to draw an horizontal line on the low of the bar.

I came fro metastock and it was easy to develop that using valuewhen function,eg. valuewhen(1,cross(fastema,slowema),High).

If someone can do that for multitimeframe usage I will grateful.

I red threads regarding moving average cross but I can't find what I'm looking for.

Sorry for bad english.

Many thanks

Cheers

bulliz

Hi,

nobody can help me?

Many thanks

bulliz

 

bulliz,

Here you go (vertical lines added by me manually just in order to show when the lines were drawn)
regards

mladen

bulliz:
Hi,

nobody can help me?

Many thanks

bulliz
1...138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152...1519
New comment
Reason: