Pollan's indicators - page 2
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
...
If the formula (math) is like it is stated on the first post :
a2=(cci-rsi)-(cci-rsi)
a3=(cci-rsi)-(cci-rsi)
....
an=(cci-rsi)-(cci-rsi)
tt1=max(a1+...+an)
tt2=min(a1+...+an)
res=tt1+tt1
there is no way it can work normally. Subtracting past RSI from future CCI has as much sense as using my left shoe as indicator for tomorrow trend. Looks much more like a bate for naive ones than a serious (or any) indicator formula.
I am afraid you are being played a practical joke
Two different thoughts from other forums.
"Assuming that the formula is correct, my personal interpretation of it is as follow:
1) min and max can't be the same, so we have to figure out some discriminating method. I guess that you have to collect 2 different sums for min and max,i.e.: for the min you have to sum the first 3 (or 4 or 5 ecc..) terms and all the series for the max.
For example, in my brute elaboration I have fixed the chain of sums to 15 terms; the sum of the first 7 term gives us the min value, the sum of all 15 term give us the max value. The sum of both min and max gives the value of the indicator. 7 and 15 are arbitrary values.
Furthemore, the value of CCI and RSI is arbitrary too: I have choosen the standard '14'.
Final result shows flebile evidences in favour of this indicator as a trigger for a buy signal BUT you have always to consider that this indicator looks into the future: backtesting shows this disappointing effect with wrong signals. Becarful.
Moreover, the scales of CCI and RSI are really different in size, as pointed out by William, and the final sum of min and max looks slighty different from the sum of all terms only.
In the end, we do not have enough information to put a final word about this indicator but - if the things are as we know it - it don't seems a real 'killer'.
eace:"
"With all my regards to bro Moshi, the posted formula is not correct.
Here's why:
- The posted formula (considering the min and max are correct) has 1 final result, which is a number and not a series of numbers. Thus we could not draw a line, but only get one number which I think should be displayed on comment.
- By analysing the math equation, assuming the min and max are separated and correct, if we plot the min and max combined, we would get a heart-sine-beat like graph, not a smoothed one like the screenshot.
- If we plot both separately, the fluctuation of prices would be quite large, thus it can't be plotted that smooth as in the picture.
- The numbers are not matching. RSI is ranging between 0 to 100, CCI is ranging between -500 to +500, the formula is basically CCI minus RSI minus CCI 2 last candle minus RSI 2 last candle. The resulting number would be big, unlike the screenshot.
Thus, I think the math formula is not correct. Like bro moshi told us, the creator just don't want to share the formula, we have to guess it by ourselves.
To leeb77, thanks for trying, it's very honourable of you to do that. However, you forget to translate the math formula into the correct sequence. The 'an' shouldn't be a variable 'an' but it is a math formula of sequence 'a(n)' thus you should put it into array. Also, CCI and RSI could be accessed by iCCI and iRSI function respectively, and you forget to set the period. Perhaps after you fix your code, we could start things from there.
Regards,
"
If the formula (math) is like it is stated on the first post :
a2=(cci-rsi)-(cci-rsi)
a3=(cci-rsi)-(cci-rsi)
....
an=(cci-rsi)-(cci-rsi)
tt1=max(a1+...+an)
tt2=min(a1+...+an)
res=tt1+tt1
there is no way it can work normally. Subtracting past RSI from future CCI has as much sense as using my left shoe as indicator for tomorrow trend. Looks much more like a bate for naive ones than a serious (or any) indicator formula.
I am afraid you are being played a practical jokeHi Mladen, it is really nice to see you here. I see what you mean. Is that possible to correct it? what can be done?
Sorry
What I can add that the lower is a normalized "something" in order to make it an oscillator (judging from +2 to -2 range it's intention was not to be used in NN or anything similar). That normalized "something" could be anything : from a simple moving average to any other indicator. And that normalized "something" has nothing to do with that formula
As I said long time ago I do not play the guessing game any more.
There are a lot of good indicators, a lot of very well documented strategies... Please, do not misunderstand me, but thinking that there is a secret formula in the market is not real. Take your time, do your own testing with your own ideas and soon you will discover that things are much simpler than "secret indicators"
regards
mladen
Hi Mladen, it is really nice to see you here. I see what you mean. Is that possible to correct it? what can be done?
Thank you...
Sorry
What I can add that the lower is a normalized "something" in order to make it an oscillator (judging from +2 to -2 range it's intention was not to be used in NN or anything similar). That normalized "something" could be anything : from a simple moving average to any other indicator. And that normalized "something" has nothing to do with that formula
As I said long time ago I do not play the guessing game any more.
There are a lot of good indicators, a lot of very well documented strategies... Please, do not misunderstand me, but thinking that there is a secret formula in the market is not real. Take your time, do your own testing with your own ideas and soon you will discover that things are much simpler than "secret indicators"
regards
mladenGood advice for every trader
Sorry
What I can add that the lower is a normalized "something" in order to make it an oscillator (judging from +2 to -2 range it's intention was not to be used in NN or anything similar). That normalized "something" could be anything : from a simple moving average to any other indicator. And that normalized "something" has nothing to do with that formula
As I said long time ago I do not play the guessing game any more.
There are a lot of good indicators, a lot of very well documented strategies... Please, do not misunderstand me, but thinking that there is a secret formula in the market is not real. Take your time, do your own testing with your own ideas and soon you will discover that things are much simpler than "secret indicators"
regards
mladenThe market moves on the simple
As I said long time ago I do not play the guessing game any more.
There are a lot of good indicators, a lot of very well documented strategies... Please, do not misunderstand me, but thinking that there is a secret formula in the market is not real. Take your time, do your own testing with your own ideas and soon you will discover that things are much simpler than "secret indicators"
regards
mladen200% agreed with you!
that is reason why I said trend is your best friend, however, indicators are your best buddies!
but it won't be bad idea to put your indicators in to better a indicator with alert though!
Pollan indicator does repaint
If Pollan had such great indicator why would he have such huge Drawdowns.
It Does Repaint at the close of each Bar. I am suspecting that depending on the number of n . It will repaint the last n bars but leave the rest of the bars OK. in that case it looks to the naked eye that it is not repainting while in actual sense it does
I really thank you all for answering. We have three reason about it in the end.
1. If it is repainting, why he does not share? You know repainting indicators are usually useless.
2. He does not want to share his code and he gave us a false code as i think.
3. As Mladen said it is kinda joke that we take seriously
Hi..
guys if u look at the name its called IP BBS ..
BBS cud be Bollinger Band squeeze?
anyone has any other idea?
Cheers