But does that mean and EA which uses the MTF indicators will produce wrong results in backtesting?

In this case it generated wrong short trades where it should have gone long because RSI was not properly calculated.

mladen: Heiko,

You are right. That is going to happen in visual testing when MTF indicator is coded a certain way (even if it work properly in run time).

Anyway, here is a properly coded mtf version (no shortcuts this time) Results are the same, the speed difference stays (that was the reason for changing it in the first place )

Just be careful with any mtf when back testing it (results are going to be missleading)

John Ehlers and Rick Ways article “Fractal Dimension As A Market Mode Sensor”. After Sevcik, then Matulich modification of fractal dimension index, then Mark Juriks version, we have a John Ehlers version of fractal dimension too. It seems that all of them are attracted to the same side of the problem (aren't we all ) Anyway, interesting to see a new look at the fractal dimension theme

mladen: From the June 2010 issue of TASC :
John Ehlers and Rick Ways article “Fractal Dimension As A Market Mode Sensor”. After Sevcik, then Matulich modification of fractal dimension index, then Mark Juriks version, we have a John Ehlers version of fractal dimension too. It seems that all of them are attracted to the same side of the problem (aren't we all ) Anyway, interesting to see a new look at the fractal dimension theme

Thanks for the excellent work Mladen , I have some qustions

--Can you explain what do you mean by '' It seems that all of them are attracted to the same side of the problem''

---what is the difference between Ehlers FDI and Jurik CFB?

---Ehlers says There is a “fuzzy” boundary from 1.6 to 1.4 where mode cannot be determined. see the chart it is clearly showing strong trend mode ,ı have checked it with several timeframes, am I wrong?Many thanks

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

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.

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.

RVIonc

Hi Mladen,

Can you please make this indicator on chart as you have the god-given talents

many thanks

mike

Files:Thanks Mladen

But does that mean and EA which uses the MTF indicators will produce wrong results in backtesting?

In this case it generated wrong short trades where it should have gone long because RSI was not properly calculated.

mladen:Heiko,

You are right. That is going to happen in visual testing when MTF indicator is coded a certain way (even if it work properly in run time).

Anyway, here is a properly coded mtf version (no shortcuts this time) Results are the same, the speed difference stays (that was the reason for changing it in the first place ) Just be careful with any mtf when back testing it (results are going to be missleading)regards

mladenEMA cross support/resistance

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

Fractal dimension - Ehlers

From the June 2010 issue of TASC :

John Ehlers and Rick Ways article “Fractal Dimension As A Market Mode Sensor”. After Sevcik, then Matulich modification of fractal dimension index, then Mark Juriks version, we have a John Ehlers version of fractal dimension too. It seems that all of them are attracted to the same side of the problem (aren't we all ) Anyway, interesting to see a new look at the fractal dimension themeFiles:Rsx ema mtf

Best regards

Doc

mladen:From the June 2010 issue of TASC : John Ehlers and Rick Ways article “Fractal Dimension As A Market Mode Sensor”. After Sevcik, then Matulich modification of fractal dimension index, then Mark Juriks version, we have a John Ehlers version of fractal dimension too. It seems that all of them are attracted to the same side of the problem (aren't we all ) Anyway, interesting to see a new look at the fractal dimension theme

Thanks for the excellent work Mladen , I have some qustions

--Can you explain what do you mean by '' It seems that all of them are attracted to the same side of the problem''

---what is the difference between Ehlers FDI and Jurik CFB?

---Ehlers says There is a “fuzzy” boundary from 1.6 to 1.4 where mode cannot be determined. see the chart it is clearly showing strong trend mode ,ı have checked it with several timeframes, am I wrong?Many thanks

Files: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

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

LouisI think is what you asked for.

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