Hidden divergence - page 27
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
1. There is a divergence: new maximum/minimum of the price - it is not confirmed by the maximum/minimum of the oscillator - it is OK ONLY WHERE WE LIKE THAT Divergence IS IMPLIED
2. There is a reverse divergence (hidden, local, unfair): the price does not make a new high/low - but a new oscillator high/low is formed.
and all that in absolute values, irrespective of the sign - let's call latent reversion (local, unfair - incorrect) and keep it that way.
But its definition on the previous page is more correct - put in
waiting for inserts
1. There is divergence: the new price high/maximum - not confirmed by the oscillator high/maximum - OK ONLY WHICH IS DIFFERENT and the regular (Straight).
2. There is a reverse divergence (hidden, local, unfair): the price does not make a new high/low - but a new oscillator high/low is formed.
and all that in absolute values, irrespective of the sign - let's call latent reversion (local, unfair - incorrect) and keep it that way.
But its definition on the previous page is more correct - paste
- It is when the dip on the indicator is deeper than the dip on the price chart and deeper (or equal) than the dip on the indicator, from which the pattern originates.
- Inverse Divergence on a bearish trend is when the top on the indicator is higher than the top on the price chart and higher (orequal) than the top on the indicator, from which the counting starts.
The latent D-K, fixed at the indicator extrema, confirms the trend (I am not sure, it is a nice formulation).
Let's grind, but the wording has to be precise at the end.
If you read carefully, then my formulation is more accurate and concise - yours is redundant, although it does not distort the meaning :) ..... only the names should be agreed upon ..... your version is acceptable, but not entirely logical: "reverse" can be associated with both - it's still a discrepancy..... ?????
And as for confirmation-unconfirmation...., Geronimo, check your email and ICQ sometime :)
But let s2101 suggest a way out.
so
Rule #1
- After diagnosing a Hidden D-C - enter in the direction of the main trend.
s2101 will not suggest it - he will send it to his articles... or a couple of screenshots of the current one, don't get your hopes up
But "enter in the direction of the main trend " is a great phrase - how do we decide?
Not formalisable-algorithmisable what?
Anything that is depicted and has stable features can be formalised.
Let's go through my posts on the previous page.
0. I, with my statements here, am only trying to move the discussion to the mql level from an emotional level
1. Not trying to algorithmise the "paraphrase" :) I will ask you a question: "The trough in the indicator is deeper than in the price chart" (for me, it is complicated), first of all, the FX5_Divergence_v1.mq4 indicator shows all of the "divergence" you are interested in :)
2. Suppose someone will write an Expert Advisor, which will open positions according to your algorithm - and here the question "and the outputs of who" will arise from time to time. I.e. "and the statistics of his prophet", obtained by this Expert Advisor will identify or reject any "pattern in the market", but not the pattern "caused by divergence". (Allogisms are in inverted commas :) )
3. it remains to collect statistics that would show that if there was a "situation" before "your signal" came, then after "your signal" came it becamea"situation". All that remains is to quickly (because the branch has grown immensely in theoretical arguments) find an indicator ofthe"situation"... Subject to your confirmation that the indicator "FX5_Divergence_v1.mq4 shows all the 'divergence' you are interested in"
'
The fact that the "system s2101" "is not codable", and therefore statistics can't be gathered with it, I understood right after the first reading of articles and "that forum". That's why I personally don't even get into arguments about his system.
'
ZS. Still, I can't resist asking. The phrase "the trough on the indicator is deeper than on the price chart" means ...ahem... "ratio of the penultimate extremum on the price chart to the last extremum on the price chart is less than the ratio of the penultimate extremum on the indicator chart to the last extremum on the indicator chart"? (there is no other way to cross cutlets with flies)
That said - do not get me wrong - until I "quickly" (FX5_Divergence_v1.mq4 + indicator "situation") get "statistics""array of numbers" (which in general case will not say anything) I will not discuss. (That's in case I'm misleading with my answers :) )
0. I've been trying to do that for a long time.
It doesn't sound like it by the "emotional intensity" (the presence of adjectives in the posts).
3. Statistics is an expert.....
H E T!!!!
TP and SL and if(OrdersTotal() == 0) everything, what both authors laid down will kill.
the system is codable
N E T!!!
At least a 5th wave is needed to signal!!!!!
if you read carefully, my wording is more precise and concise - yours is redundant, although it does not distort the meaning :)..... only the titles need to be agreed on.... your version is acceptable, but not entirely logical: "reverse" can be associated with both - it's still a discrepancy..... ?????
but about confirmation-unconfirmation...., Geronimo, drop by the mail and ICQ sometime :)
I don't have time to reply before you've already run on. I wrote more broadly there - come back.
The wording is not redundant - because what the second low on (on an uptrend) should be lower than the first low (from which the reference is taken). In your formulation the comparison is with the price but not with the indicator.
SergNF 21.07.2008 11:27
Let's stick with MACD - I'll post its upgraded version later. I haven't tried any other indicators.I cannot even reply to you before you continue. I wrote more broadly there - go back.
The wording is not redundant - because the second low on (in an uptrend) must be lower than the first low (from which the reference is taken). In your formulation the comparison is with the price but there is no comparison with the indicator.
ALL ALL
ABOUT THE INDICATORS
Let's stick with MACD - I'll post its upgraded version later.will be simpler without returns: repeat