Hidden divergence - page 12
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
>>>In general, there is a question - not idle, in the subject: it is possible in one indicator to draw lines on the chart and in a separate window..... without such perversions, that it is easier to write two?
Which lines are you talking about? Which indicator - I probably did not understand you too
---
this is an attempt to describe an image
why don't you draw a picture with comments?
It's like a blind man and a deaf man.
Without pictures, it is clearer.
We take the oscillator (OsMA, for example - it is drawn in the sub-window) - look for peaks, bottoms, etc....... correlate it with the price chart..... there is a difference (+-bar-2-3) draw a line on it.....
The question was: can the appropriate line on the price chart display the same (upgraded) indicator from its buffer..... or to do this twist with the graphical objects need....
Problem purely by code.....
it's not like we're talking about our own :))).... it's already been done, by some more than once :)....
Woolf waves, Murray patterns, etc. etc. did not come from nothing. - some patterns, whether we want to admit it or not exist - maybe they don't work, in our interpretation...... so maybe they didn't tell us all about them? :)
That 21-xx-xx on OsMA is a fitting, it is clear at once - the market cannot help changing and the useless (provoking!) focus on measuring the market in bars, the way of a dead end, I think no one is in any doubt..... there are certainly statistical probabilities of time-session nature, but not about it....
SL201 is right about one thing: fractality..... only it is not as simple as the standard 5-3 structure..... so there is no operability that would allow a clear algorithm to be drawn up in his system.......
If it were.... it wouldn't take a year or two to get it right :))
Here's a greeting from the 20th century from Demark, well apparently the market hasn't had time to change yet...1. if we see a divergence in an indicator it does not mean a reversal, but only warns that a reversal is possible.
1a. the divergence tells us only that the indicator period is shorter than the wave length. There are happy coincidences. But it is a fitting of the indicator slice chattiness to the prevailing wavelengths.
1. my advice would be to use the same indicator with a larger period, and leave it at that
2. What does the divergence in real time give us? Well, we can see it, so what?
It, the divergence, will want to and will continue with an even smaller hump. The scientific thing: how many of these divergences will be depends on "random" factors = indicator period and wavelength in bars.
So isn't it easier to reason about the wavelength in bars without involving an indicator!
3. You can indirectly catch the wavelength by comparing the divergence of one indictor on different periods. Maybe it will be useful. Maybe it can even be patented))
But this is just an indirect wavelength determination.
4. at the first signs of divergence we can adjust the indicators according to the wave analysis tool.
-Everything is possible. But as for the divergence itself, it's just an inherent flaw in the indicators
(or an eternal topic for grant eaters).
The reasoning is based on a particular market model and on the notion that there is a limited variety of indicators available. Within this framework the conclusions may be valid, but they cannot claim to be general. But later the author came close to the conception of "the moments of choice" and to the idea that divergences can be the signs of these moments. The problem is that in most cases the market seems not to know what it will choose at the "moment of choice" :) .
So you are targeting a correction - am I understanding this correctly?
Yes. There is always a correction after an impulse. It has different magnitude, so it is relevant to exit if we only work on the recovery after the impulse. Or catch 3rd wave, sometimes 5th or b, sometimes 2nd correction of 3rd wave. Since a correction after an impulse is inevitable, and its energy was not enough to gain new heights, then such conditions for the market at the moment are true and the impulse is confirmed (Fischer, Miner). The torn D-K is often visualized during an impulse, as well as during reversal absorption models (it can be defined numerically through the ratio of candle bodies to ranges or visually by V.Kelasev methods or by the Conditional Sideways Movement model - V.Zverkov, etc., etc.).
The reasoning is based on a specific market model and on the notion that there is a limited variety of indicators. Within this framework the conclusions may be valid, but they cannot claim to be general. But later the author came close to the conception of "the moments of choice" and to the idea that divergences can be the signs of these moments. The problem is that in most cases the market seems not to know itself what it will choose at the "moment of choice" :) .
1. Half of the volume of this thread has developed in the sense of special properties and some special knowledge of
momentum divergence in the image of the exhibition ExpoFOREX OSMA (9,21,5)
2. what is to be gained from this.... - that technical indicators are not the best half of TA.
specific indicator parameters work well for certain periods of the market at certain time intervals
the author of this thread has just raised the subject of convergence - or it is also called - the hidden divergence
the topic is interesting and broad
Divergence - convergence has been and will be the best market entry point.
after a short time the order reaches the break-even point
The technical indicators are not the best half of TA.
>> I don't know. When I think of a price series characteristic and want to visualise it, I write an indicator. I usually don't think about TA at this point. Although formally, I probably stay within its framework. If not to limit the notion of TA to that set of instruments described in their books by "classics".
No pictures, it's easier to understand.
We take the oscillator (OsMA, for example - it is drawn in the sub-window) - look for peaks, bottoms, etc....... correlate it with the price chart..... there is a difference (+-bar-2-3) draw a line on it.....
The question was: can the appropriate line on the price chart to display the same (upgraded) indicator from its buffer..... or to twist with the graphical objects need....
Problem purely by code.....
I draw with trend lines, i.e. I work with objects
Wow, what magnificent schizophrenia this turns out to be. All indictors are sick and will be incurable until we stop investing in them the ability to predict the future without good reason. The existing representation of charts (conventional, equitemporal bars) and their corresponding analytical and statistical properties allow us to speak confidently only about what happened in the past - but not about what happens next.
I hope that under certain conditions even wipers, which usually produce very mediocre signals, can become reliable indicators of the future. But in order to do so, it will be necessary to reflect on what we are relying on. If nobody minds, I will break into the topic of high di(ko,con)vergence with my simple and not at all philosophical dummies. Let's try to find an analytical rather than graphical basis for our confidence that the wizards should work.
An example is a trading system that generates signals on the crossing of the wavebow (period, say, 13) with the price. The signals are very simple: if the price is greater than the mask, we buy, and if it is less, we sell. Analytically, the signal to buy looks like this (do not touch the zero bar):
13 * Close[1] > ( Close[1] + Close[2] + Close[3] + ... + Close[13] )
Great, now - stupid question: why, on what analytical basis do we believe that the price will rise for at least some time if we know this condition? Where in this condition is the information about future bars? There isn't any. There it is, the schizophrenia of the wrecking ball. Or rather, not the wreck itself, but our interpretation of the signal. I apologize for the diagnosis, but so far I do not see any reason for optimism.
Here's a greeting from the 20th century from Demark, well apparently the market hasn't had time to change yet...There's a lot of these greetings to be had.... and can you make a prediction? .... and if so, with what probability?