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
Well yes, Candid, the native iMA () is hardly calculated recursively. All from scratch, by a direct formula.
P.S. I just needed to write the numbers in a different order.
Cleaned indices. M_qRMA requires a compiled M_qWMA
P.S. I have some doubts about the consistency of the six. Maybe it's easier to cycle the calculation as it happens? (see f-la in the comments)
Ah, there it is. Sorry, misunderstood you.
What is HMA, pisara?
P.S. Found it: 'HMA'. What's the idea behind it?
halvedLength:= = if((ceiling(length/2) - (length/2) <= 0.5), ceiling(length/2), floor(length/2));
sqrRootLength:= if((ceiling(sqrt(length) - sqrt(length) <= 0.5), ceiling(sqrt(length)), floor(sqrt(length));
Value1:= 2 * mov(price,length,method);
Value2:= mov(price,length,method);
HMA:= mov((Value1-Value2),sqrRootLength,method);
here is a variant without colours
Okay, I'm disavowing it. You're not paranoid. It's a normal measure to ensure the purity of the experiment.
2 Korey: the six is absolutely correct, if everything is counted accurately. It results from the summation of the squares of natural 1 to N. The sum is N(N+1)(2N+1)/6. Direct software summation will give the same result, just a bit longer.
You calculate the normalizing k-value incorrectly, you don't need to subtract one from the sum there. And you have a formula which is commented out wrong: not
а