Forget random quotes - page 22

New comment
 
C-4:

See, this is what I mean. Moreover, there are platforms where this is the case. First, we plot the indicator's value for the entire history and then we re-run the robot on the history for which the indicator values have already been calculated. And if in MT4 it is quite easy to bypass "looking through" (as alsu writes), because all indicators are dynamically built at the moment of zero bar, in other platforms it is not so, and we must be very clear that the same top ZZ in them is a future result. You have to delay the execution of the incoming signal yourself. And this can be a very non-trivial task, which complicates coding and makes the probability of a pseudo-grail much higher.


Don't make a fool of us.

It was about pure zz

C-4 15.07.2012 12:38

faa1947:
I've never understood "looking to the future". ZZ is what kind of indicator?

It is a classic redrawing indicator with a peek into the future. At one current price ZZ n bars ago it can show a top and at another it is already a trough.

 
faa1947:

All the time I have been talking about the assessment of the past and the change in that assessment on the arrival of the new bar. I don't see any objections on this particular point, although I may have missed


Well, what's the objection. We're all in agreement. You are simply saying that as new information comes in, you react to it promptly and change your original forecast. It is not a redrawing forecast, but one that changes over time. If you show your forecast as an indicator, then every new bar will be slightly different in one direction or another. Most TA indicators are based on this.
 
Mischek2:


Don't make a fool of us

It was about pure zzz.

I'm sorry, I've lost track of your twisted thinking. Some kind of rumbling mixture of letters, emotions, accusations of who knows what, and the notorious United Russia. I really don't understand why my previous posts should contradict the current one? All correctly quoted, well done, if you want I can repeat my words again, they all apply to history work:

Zig-Zag is a classic redrawing indicator with a peek into the future. At one current price the ZZ n bars back can show a top and at another a trough.

 
No, really, arguing about something that is not worth a bred egg. In that sense, arguing about the finitude and infiniteness of a stick is more important. What's next? Argue that the Earth isn't really round?
 
C-4:
Sorry, I really don't understand your twisted thinking anymore. Some kind of rumbling mixture of letters, emotions, accusations of who knows what, and the notorious United Russia. I really don't understand why my previous posts should contradict the current one? You quoted it right, well done, if you want I can repeat my words again, they all relate to the work of history.

Thanks, no need, it's all been understood a long time ago.
 
C-4:
No, really, arguing about something that is not worth a bred egg. In that sense, arguing about the finitude and infiniteness of a stick is more important. What's next? Argue that the Earth isn't really round?

It's not round, by the way.
 
alsu:

1. information is needed, but only at the current moment. There is no point in storing it just to draw it on the chart.

At the same time, I also do not need the information that was in the past, on the previous bar, which has already been redrawn, because that information I used in the past, and now it is not important to me.

2. PS If it is interesting to see how I program without looking at the chart, I can arrange a session for a reasonable fee)

1. There are recursive calculations and there are nonrecursive ones, where the values of previous solutions are not taken into account, but only the input data. Recursive filter calculations, if they are stable, are known to have better characteristics, both computationally and in terms of performance. So it is illogical to reject it thoughtlessly.

2) I wonder how you can show it, you keep all graph in your head and nobody from outside will understand anything. ))

 

faa1947:

All the time I have been talking about the assessment of the past and the change in that assessment on the arrival of the new bar. I don't see any objections on this particular point, although I may have missed it.

There was a question about the delay, wasn't there? And waiting for a new bar is a delay that can be very significant on large TFs. So should we humbly wait for the weather? ))
 
Andrei01:
Wasn't there a question about the delay? And waiting for a new bar is a delay which can be very significant on large TFs. So is it worth waiting by the sea of weather? ))
I would like to keep the conversation going, but I don't know what you're talking about.
 
faa1947:
I'd like to keep the conversation going, but I don't know what you're talking about.
could you give an example of when redrawing gives a better estimate than without it?
1...151617181920212223242526272829...66
New comment