1st and 2nd derivatives of the MACD - page 18
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
That's my point - it's a variation on a theme. You get, as always in TA, you don't know what, and then you differentiate. Very close to manual self-care.
So you don't take ma - ma or ma/ma-1 in magdi, you take ma/close-1 or ma-close
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.
So you don't take ma - ma or ma/ma-1 in magdi, but take ma/close-1 or ma-close
I even have a book on MACD. But there are no frequencies there is no spectrum and no phases. It's all invented. For all those words there is a mighty science called filters or DSP, as you like. That's where it's at, and that's where it's wizardry.
The MACD is a standard bandpass filter. Not a very good one. It's a shell for other filters. I use a 2nd order Chebyshev for that purpose.
Why guess, though. I will now tune my program to EMA and see the differences.
Most likely MACD book was written by non-specialists. Or it was written to popularize trading not to bog down the readers with technical terms. This is a good way to advertise. Like, everyone is an expert now. A couple of half an hour courses for 10,000 rubles. And ready to expert :-)).
I do so, only instead of MA I take HP, but for me it doesn't matter, as I am solving quite another problem - I am struggling with non-stationarity of the market. Does the MACD differentiation solve this problem? Or what problem does differentiation solve? I haven't figured out what the problem is yet. Should I take the derivative or something?
I wrote above that the first derivative shifts the phase by half a period. For a standard MACD it makes no sense. Its fronts are too flat. But for steeper filters interesting results are obtained.
1st derivative - acceleration.
2nd derivative - speed of acceleration.
I.e. it is possible to open trades in advance and only when the market is really "alive".
So the standard MACD is a bandpass filter. It's not very good. It's a shell for other filters. I use a 2nd order Chebyshev for that purpose.
Why guess, though. I'll tune my program to EMA and see how they differ.
I'm all for pure words. A MACD is a MACD. And a bandpass filter is a bandpass filter. You can use the word "goodness" with the word filter, but you cannot use it with MACD. Only in poetry can you mix "horses, people...". As soon as you start using words with their meanings, you can immediately engage in the great science of filter construction. And there is nothing behind the words "MACD goodness" but words.
You are very strict :-) Have a look at the MACD device. This is a bandpass filter obtained by subtracting one low-pass filter from another.
You can substitute other steeper filters in place of these low-pass filters.
Therefore, MACD is a shell for bandpass filters in a general sense.
That is, you can open trades in advance and only when the market is really alive.
Why guess, though. I'll tune my programme to EMA and see what the differences are.
Blah blah blah. start a separate thread for your tests.
If you reply to posts on the subject, there will be no blah blah blah
"Is it the MACD differentiation that solves the non-stationarity problem? Or what problem does differentiation solve? I haven't figured out what the problem is yet. Take the derivative or something?"
For me, the 2nd derivative solved the problem of getting an early signal to the input. The problem with the output is. It is not clear when to exit. So far we set TP and SL based on the statistical volatility of the last period.