RSI of Moving Average - page 31
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
Krzysztof I am not referring to parameter(s). I am referring to the source array of data for calculation that is passed to dz calculation as a basis for calculation (the first parameter that is passed to the functions - the sourceArray[] from the functions prototypes). If (as it is obvious from the displayed chart you posted) the values used for calculation are different, the zones must be different too (regardless of the same parameters).
Yes, this what I suspect but there is no black magic here, only difference is that the ticks are generated by MT4 tester
Here is a code. Both RSI and bands calculation seems to be affected by this.
if (calculateValue || timeFrame==Period())
{
if (slope[limit] == -1) ClearPoint(limit,rsida,rsidb);
if (detrend) for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = iMA(NULL,0,Detrend_Period,0,Before_Mode,Before_Price,i);
if (!detrend)for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = iMA(NULL,0,Period_Before,0,Before_Mode,Before_Price,i);
if (detrend) {
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = Close-mab;
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = iMAOnArray(mab,0,Period_Before,0,MODE_SMA,i);
}
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) rsi = iRSIOnArray(mab,0,RsiOma_Period,i);
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--)
{
ma = iMAOnArray(rsi,0,MaPeriod,0,MaType,i);
rsida = EMPTY_VALUE;
rsidb = EMPTY_VALUE;
slope = slope;
trend = trend;
if (rsi > rsi) slope= 1;
if (rsi < rsi) slope=-1;
if (rsi > ma) trend= 1;
if (rsi < ma) trend=-1;
if (slope == -1) PlotPoint(i,rsida,rsidb,rsi);
bli = dzBuy (rsi,DzStartBuyProbability, DzLookBackBars, Bars, i );
sli = dzSell(rsi,DzStartSellProbability, DzLookBackBars, Bars, i );
}
Yes, this what I suspect but there is no black magic here, only difference is that the ticks are generated by MT4 tester
Here is a code. Both RSI and bands calculation seems to be affected by this.
if (calculateValue || timeFrame==Period())
{
if (slope[limit] == -1) ClearPoint(limit,rsida,rsidb);
if (detrend) for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = iMA(NULL,0,Detrend_Period,0,Before_Mode,Before_Price,i);
if (!detrend)for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = iMA(NULL,0,Period_Before,0,Before_Mode,Before_Price,i);
if (detrend) {
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = Close-mab;
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) mab = iMAOnArray(mab,0,Period_Before,0,MODE_SMA,i);
}
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--) rsi = iRSIOnArray(mab,0,RsiOma_Period,i);
for (i=limit; i >= 0; i--)
{
ma = iMAOnArray(rsi,0,MaPeriod,0,MaType,i);
rsida = EMPTY_VALUE;
rsidb = EMPTY_VALUE;
slope = slope;
trend = trend;
if (rsi > rsi) slope= 1;
if (rsi < rsi) slope=-1;
if (rsi > ma) trend= 1;
if (rsi < ma) trend=-1;
if (slope == -1) PlotPoint(i,rsida,rsidb,rsi);
bli = dzBuy (rsi,DzStartBuyProbability, DzLookBackBars, Bars, i );
sli = dzSell(rsi,DzStartSellProbability, DzLookBackBars, Bars, i );
}
Krzysztof
MT tester (and the way it generates ticks) is one of the funniest things there is. It has nothing in common with reality (I have posted some picture of ticks generated by tester in the "various" thread - can not find it right now, but what it was showing is a ridiculous generated distribution that was nothing like reality)
Krzysztof MT tester (and the way it generates ticks) is one of the funniest things there is. It has nothing in common with reality (I have posted some picture of ticks generated by tester in the "various" thread - can not find it right now, but what it was showing is a ridiculous generated distribution that was nothing like reality)
Tick distribution only applies to 'within the bar' time, it should hold OHLC values or ???
Anyway I tried another testing model called 'control point' but it seems to be similar - there
is a mismatch between tester drawn and offline drawn charts.
So what is a conclusion ?? How is possible to back test something having only OHLC values in MT4 and no such mismatch ??
Tick distribution only applies to 'within the bar' time, it should hold OHLC values or ???
Anyway I tried another testing model called 'control point' but it seems to be similar - there
is a mismatch between tester drawn and offline drawn charts.
So what is a conclusion ?? How is possible to back test something having only OHLC values in MT4 and no such mismatch ??
I tried 3rd model 'open prices' and its the same. All of them give this mismatch
Tick distribution only applies to 'within the bar' time, it should hold OHLC values or ???
Anyway I tried another testing model called 'control point' but it seems to be similar - there
is a mismatch between tester drawn and offline drawn charts.
So what is a conclusion ?? How is possible to back test something having only OHLC values in MT4 and no such mismatch ??
Welcome to the club
We are "crying wolf" (that metatrader tester is useless) for so long time that people by now think that we are like that kid that was not telling the truth. But, unfortunately, we are (telling the truth).
Whatever method they use for generating data in back-test (they are calling it a "genetic algorithm") you will find out that it makes the same nonsense at the same places over and over, so, nothing with the implied intra-bar randomness of the "genetic algorithm" nor does it honor the obvious what should be honored (the OHLC values). As if it was deliberately made to avoid similarity to realty
:):)
Welcome to the club
We are "crying wolf" (that metatrader tester is useless) for so long time that people by now think that we are like that kid that was not telling the truth. But, unfortunately, we are (telling the truth).
Whatever method they use for generating data in back-test (they are calling it a "genetic algorithm") you will find out that it makes the same nonsense at the same places over and over, so, nothing with the implied intra-bar randomness of the "genetic algorithm" nor does it honor the obvious what should be honored (the OHLC values). As if it was deliberately made to avoid similarity to realtyI think OHLC is held. I just made another test and if you plot simple RSI mismatch don't occur.
(basic test methodology - if nothing works back to the square 1). So RSI which is implemented
in MT4 as separate script is working.
But i think during 'test mode' some imprecisions are occuring most likely for speeding up as the biggest mismatch occurs for this test in detrended mode as Close-mab is a very small value.
So all those iMAOnArray/iRSIOnArray/iMA internally may use much lower precision than 'double'
Simple test. Rewrite this indi using scripts like SimpleMAOnBuffer from MovingAverages.mqh
but not build in functions would confirm/deny this theory
I think OHLC is held. I just made another test and if you plot simple RSI mismatch don't occur.
(basic test methodology - if nothing works back to the square 1). So RSI which is implemented
in MT4 as separate script is working.
But i think during 'test mode' some imprecisions are occuring most likely for speeding up as the biggest mismatch occurs for this test in detrended mode as Close-mab is a very small value.
So all those iMAOnArray/iRSIOnArray/iMA internally may use much lower precision than 'double'
Simple test. Rewrite this indi using scripts like SimpleMAOnBuffer from MovingAverages.mqh
but not build in functions would confirm/deny this theoryIf I remember correctly built in sma has a serious error - it never can reach the value of 0 (even when the sequence of enough zeroes is present in the sample - in which case sma must be equal to 0). Also I think that they have similar problems with smma and lwma. So far I haven't noticed problems only with their built in EMA
Anyway, that is one of the reasons why I prefer to write my own functions - that way I am sure that even if I notice an error in it I can correct it and not just look at it and accept wrong results (and there are quite a few such cases when it comes to metatrader built in functions - unfortunately)
If I remember correctly built in sma has a serious error - it never can reach the value of 0 (even when the sequence of enough zeroes is present in the sample - in which case sma must be equal to 0). Also I think that they have similar problems with smma and lwma. So far I haven't noticed problems only with their built in EMA Anyway, that is one of the reasons why I prefer to write my own functions - that way I am sure that even if I notice an error in it I can correct it and not just look at it and accept wrong results (and there are quite a few such cases when it comes to metatrader built in functions - unfortunately)
Working !!! iMAOnArray(mab,0,Period_Before,0,MODE_SMA,i); in combination with using of MT4 tester was a problem. I changed everywhere to MODE_EMA and its ok now !!!
See screenshoot in detrend mode when MODE_EMA and MODE_SMA.
So tester is OK most likely....ufff, beautifull day gone on digging on this...
Thanks a lot, mladen
Krzysztof
Here is some EA results based on RSIOMA with Dynamic zone probability bands with DZ settings 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2
for last week EURUSD 1min. The system generated not so many trades but from results you can see that only for
values 0.05 and 0.1 PF had some reasonable value (0.82). Turning on detrending seems to decrease performance for those settings
Krzysztof
Their SimpleMAOnBuffer has the same error as their iMAOnArray (they use the same way of calculating). It is the way that is made to be faster but they overlooked the case of repeating values and SMA.
Here is a function that always calculates correct values, and is as fast as that fast way they are using (even in those cases of repeated values, so all in all, it was just a matter of writing it using different calcuation way and predicting what can happen with the way they are using):
double iSma(double price, int period, int r, int instanceNo=0)
{
if (ArrayRange(workSma,0)!= Bars) ArrayResize(workSma,Bars); int k = period; instanceNo *= 2;
workSma[r] = price;
if (r>=period)
workSma[r] = workSma[r-1]+workSma[r]-workSma[r-period];
else { workSma[r] = 0; for(k=0; k=0; k++) workSma[r] += workSma[r-k]; }
return(workSma[r]/k);
}
Thanks. I ve seen this function in a lot of your indicators, however didn't know why is there...now i know. Anyway this bug can explain a lot of problems with MT4 tester, I'm just curious how much money traders lost due to this bug...
Krzysztof