Hidden divergence - page 54
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
And I am just saying that there are too many problems for "mechanical recognition", at least the mismatch of nodes (tops/troughs) in the charts and on the oscillator, and what to consider these nodes, and at what divergence (in bars) to consider that there is a connection between nodes, and when "already passed", i.e. "purely life specific" description of parameters in numerical form. And theory... I don't want to offend anyone, but as a dilettante I don't give a baaaaaaaloooo much of a shit. If the indicator shows something, it will show both according to theory and contrary to it, it's just that there is another question "read here and not read there". And to get to it we should first understand how to read it.
I, for example, don't understand a lot of things, but I'm used to it. What is, why and what hides a hidden divergence? I have only two types of divergence (conditionally Dr and Ds) and two types of convergence (Cr and Cs). All give reversal signals, the only difference is whether price is trying to bounce back from resistance or support. Why do we draw the oscillator along the slopes and draw the tangents to highs and lows in the charts? Maybe we should double the oscillator: both for highs and lows? Why do we compare only the nodes of the oscillator with the nodes in the charts? Which comes first - the price, or the oscillator? Maybe we should find the nodes on the low first and take them down to the oscillator...?
Happy profits to all realists.
Thank you, we try! Same to you!
I just gave an example of how to choose.
I rate Andrei highly, based on his sensible posts, articles, and statements.
There are actually quite a few good programmers here.
---
Don't believe in neural networks.
- Just look at the result of a well-designed network
https://championship.mql4.com/2007/ru/users/Better/
1300% in 3 months... might be worth paying attention to.
I think you know how to analyze, check entry and exit points.
I have not seen a qualified trader with returns of 1300% in three months on a deposit of 10k or more.
Is there a programmer rating anywhere?
If I see the code and description, or 3 years' work of this EA (Better), I will believe it.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. It's just that you have studied your strategies. And trading using divergence signals gives very good results. There are drawdowns, of course, but they are not bad, read - stable.
How good is it? >> What kind of drawdowns?
Why 3 years and not 3 months or 1 year or 5 years or 10 years? After all, any MTS tends to become "obsolete" as the market does change, no matter what "evil tongues" say. And if properly re-trained, it can give profit in the next months too, but maybe not so big, but profit.....)))
Is there, anywhere, a rating of programmers?
If I see code and description, or work for 3 years of this advisor (Better) - I'll believe it.
1
What exactly is the reason for 3 years?
Don't you change your strategies when the market changes?
---
typical change
last year the average euro move was about 70 pips from high to low
this is about 170p, are you sure your strategy should not move stops and takei or change any parameters?
---
i dont see the point in a strategy that trades perfectly in 1999 or the first quarter of 1996 but loses in 2008
the market changes and parameters change - don't you agree with that?
---
2 no rating,
it's true it's hard to choose a programmer without knowledge - the best criteria are the number of articles on this site, the quality of posts, post analysis, recommendations
search... analyze the information - there's a lot of it here.
How good is it? What's the drawdown?
Drawdowns? If without control of the deal (pending in advance, absence on the workplace) then up to 180, in my memory, it is on the pound. I have doubled my deposit in a month. How do you do?
And I am just saying that there are too many problems for "mechanical recognition", at least the mismatch of nodes (tops/troughs) in the charts and on the oscillator, and what to consider these nodes, and at what divergence (in bars) to consider that there is a connection between nodes, and when "already passed", i.e. "purely life specific" description of parameters in numerical form. And theory... I don't want to offend anyone, but as a dilettante I don't give a baaaaaallllke much of a shit. If the indicator shows something, it will show both according to theory and in spite of it, there is just the second question "read here and not read there". And to get to it we should first understand how to read it.
I, for example, don't understand a lot of things, but I'm used to it. What is, why and what hides a hidden divergence? I have only two types of divergence (conditionally Dr and Ds) and two types of convergence (Cr and Cs). All give reversal signals, the only difference is whether price is trying to bounce back from resistance or support. Why do we draw the oscillator along the slopes and draw the tangents to highs and lows in the charts? Maybe we should double the oscillator: both for highs and lows? Why do we compare only the nodes of the oscillator with the nodes in the charts? Which comes first - the price or the oscillator? Maybe we should find the nodes on the low and put them on the oscillator? And how do hedgehogs fuck? It can be unpleasant even against the grain, especially now, you know, it's the fashion to cut the hair in such a patterned way... and needles are not wool! It's sado-masochism... By the way - if we add nodes built "from the oscillator" to the nodes in between, we can get additional signals, and not bad ones, found on the oscillator (I call it implicit divergence, I don't know what I mean). А ...
No, not "A". It turns out to be a dixie. I'm all out of lambchop. I'm gonna go get some air.
Happy profits to all the realists.
If divergence is "Entry/Exit points" we have one algorithm.
...we have a completely different algorithm if the divergence is "Simplified Elliott Wave Analysis", because the robust targets are different.
i.e.
the divergence = entry/exit points are mocking the trader and his oscillators (wrong target)
divergence as a sign of the phase of a possible wave completion = a solid basis for MTS
the programmer as a cobbler - sews to the measure, and "divergence as an entry point" is the wrong measure.
Divergence is certainly a good thing, but unfortunately it is highly period-dependent. If we do not have a mechanism for adjusting to the optimum, it may fall into the opposite phase and give losses instead of profits. Or everything is fine in one direction on trend segments, while on the other one it shows losses.
In NeuroShell2 in the package "Indicators" they adjust the periods including MACD and OsMa by correlation to the price. However, it is not quite clear how they calculate the correlation as the price contains the full component while the divergence is mainly a variable. Maybe someone has faced with calculating the correlation of this type?
Thank you, we try! Same to you!
It's a good thing I didn't have time to leave.
You seem to have some real work to do? If it's not too much of a mystery, send me the doggie, please. My soapbox is in my profile. Only if it doesn't scare you - if you like it, I'll disfigure it a bit. Right now I'm bored with "normal" drawing, so I'm just taking it easy. The drawing on the right is the candles as is, the one on the left is after my mockery. And I'm using them to draw the indices. By the way - I am only joking on forums, I am quite a decent person in correspondence.
I wanted to show that strange as it may seem - the signals are the same, only it's easier to recognize them.
And in general - just a question for coders: does anyone have some fun stuff, which calculations are based on the proportions of shadows and the carcass? Share them, if you don't mind.
to ANG3110
The first hurdle is to correctly subtract the trend from the price, and that's where your development is very strong,
- is it not possible to normalise the periods of indicators?