Wave analysis - page 21
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
The Neely split indicator is tied to the ZigZZ(k) of Clot because almost always the zigzag DTZZ(k) for timeframe T1 = zigzag DTZ(k*T2/T1) for timeframe T2.
I use my own algorithm for zigzagging through a section of the data and selecting peaks and troughs according to the chosen parameters and filtering out minor deviations in the presence of oscillations in the trend reversal section...
I use my own ZZ algorithm to go through a section of the data and select peaks and troughs according to the chosen parameters and filter out minor deviations when there are oscillations in the trend reversal section...
Are your ZigZags overdrawn? Can the current ZigZag ray disappear?
If the situation reverses, then this ray of ZZ will not disappear, it will remain, if ZZ continues to move further, it will grow to the highest point where the price will move, as shown in the picture above, where several ZZ are displayed.
In order for a triple to complete (it's only patterns -ZigZag, Flat), you need a completion index (L3,L5) or a specific set of notations for the first 3 beams. The given situation is definitely not possible, Neely is a competent cut-off. But for very complex corrections (rays 7,8 in a horrible Flat) there will be a situation described by you: one pattern inside another if there is no x-wave (i.e. there is an error in notation).
Better of course to go down to a smaller timeframe during the flat :).
At the moment when there were only three rays the figure was not called a three? Only when two more rays appear and we see that it was not a part of five, then we can say it was a three? What's the point? Just to claim that the patterns don't intersect?
In that case, the lower gear was just going up higher and higher...if we used a more wavy sampling of the gear, there would be at least two more sections of gear on that section
At the very moment when there were only three rays, the figure was not called a three? Only when two more rays appear and we see that it was not part of a five, can we say it was a three? What's the point? Just to argue that the patterns don't overlap?
If you're talking about the present, how can you know which pattern is coming? For example, three waves could be a ZigZag pattern and part in a momentum pattern or a flat correction could be part of a terminal pattern. If you only have three waves, then you have no figure, only a guess (when you add future variants it will start cutting off) and also the characteristic of the figure (is it impulse or not, i.e. is there :5 in structural notations).
The figures do not overlap in the past.
In order for a triple to complete (it's only patterns -ZigZag, Flat), you need a completion index (L3,L5) or a specific set of notations for the first 3 beams. The given situation is definitely not possible, Neely is a competent cut-off. But for very complex corrections (rays 7,8 in a horrible Flat) there will be a situation described by you: one pattern inside another one if there is no x-wave (i.e. there is an error in notation).
It is better to go to a smaller timeframe during the flat :).
Can it be translated into Russian? It looks like gibberish. And in what sense is the situation impossible when there are many such situations on the chart?
Can this be translated into Russian? It's abracadabra. And in what sense is the situation impossible when there are many such situations on the graph?
How can I explain it to you? Read Neely, you have to read up to chapter 5 there and you don't have to read everything, then the terminology will be clear.
That's cool!
And in general, it would be good to measure the fluttering doe of wave theory with contemptible statistics. Someone on the forum seems to be racing neural nets on zigzags, where is he? Why is he sitting back? Why is he not commenting?
How can I explain it to you? Read Neely, you have to read up to chapter 5 there and you don't have to read everything, then the terminology will be clear.
Neely's terminology is clear to me. I am reading the book at the moment. What you write, on the other hand, makes no sense. Example:
"For a triple to complete (it's only patterns -ZigZag, Flat), you need a completion index (L3,L5)"
It means that an index must be set for the triplet to complete. It is sort of a mandatory condition. Correspondingly, until the index is set, the triplet is not completed.
- Nonsense.