1st and 2nd derivatives of the MACD - page 17
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
Is there any sense at all in the 2nd derivative of the MACD because the MACD itself is in fact a kind of speed gauge, then the first derivative is acceleration and the second one is what?
It turns out that the derivative of the MACD (white indicator) is almost identical to the dynamics of the AC oscillator (acceleration/deceleration).
Valera, I don't see any direct insults.
The escalation of the conversation with Vadim was your own fault, starting with this post:
The personal attack started with you.
I expect to hear further discussion of personalities in private or in the anti-spam thread. No need to spoil this thread.
However, let me respond to the rebuke in my own thread. The beginning was much earlier and not from me. Why did you draw such a conclusion by tearing out part of my text from the existing conflict I do not understand. where in the passage you cited is an insult(you have a whole ACADEMY, teach there Professor, we will try to survive somehow with three classes of parochial school). Apart from that, everything you said is a fact.
Academia ..... is the name of one forum. You do not have it, they have it, and he (Vadim) is not alone there. he is listed as a teacher in one of the so called departments. the only change of personality on my part is the word professor (I did not know that the word professor is an insult nowadays))))).
Before dealing with the derivative, it is a good idea to find out if the MACD has anything to do with the quote itself.
This is the question I was investigating once. It takes the price increment and puts it in dependence on the indicators increments
price would be the dependent variable (function) and the other indicators would be the independent variables. Here is a schematic equation:
price price(-1) dac(-1) dao(-1) dbears(-1) dbulls(-1) cci(-1) dframa(-1) dmacdm(-1)
-1 means previous value. This is natural, because the indicator is derived from price analytically. Let's consider that price is an increment and therefore we will take indicator increments. Due to laziness I do not take all indicators. Let's estimate this equation using the method of least squares:
We have got the estimation of the equation coefficients. The last column is very interesting: it means the probability that the corresponding coefficient is equal to zero. This probability for all ratios is considerably higher than at least 10%, i.e. we can consider that we cannot reject the hypothesis of the correspondent ratios being equal to zero. Accordingly the R-squared has a ridiculous value.
I conclude that MACD increment has nothing to do with the price increment. I am sure the MACD based on the price itself will have nothing to do with the price.
What are we discussing here?
Before dealing with the derivative, it's a good idea to find out if the MACD has anything to do with the quote itself.
This is a question I used to investigate. It takes the price increment and puts it in dependence on the indicators increments
price will be the dependent variable (function) and the other indicators will be independent variables. Here is a schematic equation:
price price(-1) dac(-1) dao(-1) dbears(-1) dbulls(-1) cci(-1) dframa(-1) dmacdm(-1)
-1 means previous value. This is natural, because the indicator is derived from price analytically. Let's consider that price is an increment and therefore we will take indicator increments. Due to laziness I do not take all indicators. Let's estimate this equation using the method of least squares:
We have obtained the estimation of the equation coefficients. The last column is very interesting: it means the probability that the corresponding coefficient is equal to zero. This probability for all the ratios is much higher than at least 10%, i.e. we can consider that we cannot reject the hypothesis of equality to zero of the corresponding coefficient. Accordingly the R-squared has a ridiculous value.
I conclude that MACD increment has nothing to do with the price increment. I am sure the MACD based on the price itself will have nothing to do with the price.
What are we discussing here?
There is always a probability (however small) that the hypothesis is true. And vice versa.
Take the formula of the calculated indicator and check its components
There is always a probability (albeit a small one) that the hypothesis is true. And vice versa.
Take the calculated indicator formula and check the components
Somewhere true, but actually false. You can't believe it at all.
There's also a column of error there. More than 100%. And we know this, I think it's called divisiveness. The most wonderful nonsense: it matches - good, it doesn't match - even better, as divisiveness.
Valera, see your personal message.
I conclude that the MACD increment has nothing to do with the price increment. I am also sure that the MACD based on the price itself will have nothing to do with the price.
What are we discussing here?
The MACD increment has to do with the amplitude increment of that sum of frequencies which is filtered out. This is not really a price.
The presence of divergence indicates that a filter with very flat fronts has been applied. An ideal filter would have a pure sine wave output. It would have no divergence.
The MACD increment has to do with the amplitude increment of that sum of frequencies which is filtered out. This is not really a price.
The presence of divergence indicates that a filter with very flat fronts has been applied. An ideal filter would have a pure sine wave output. It would have no divergence.
That's what I'm saying - they are variations on the subject. As always in TA, we get whatever we don't know, and then we differentiate. Very close to manual self-care.
Not really. If this is applied to all harmonics in the price spectrum, you get a very interesting picture to trade on.
That is, you don't have to tear off part of the spectrum. The whole spectrum should be used.