Indicators: Confluence Detector - page 4
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
[T]he hint was in the screenshot!
I confused the M30 chart in your pic with the indicator default settings:
Having another look at the sequence of the default settings (and your settings pic), I can see that a descending order is intended.
Back in Monty Python world.
"Pining for the fjords?" 😂
I did argue my points. You simply dismissed them. You did not even ask for clarification or even examples. You simply stated "...everything does work right, and this is the beauty...".
How exactly does one debate with another who only wishes to see through their own tint of rose-coloured glasses?
Conner, I do not wish to antagonise you, nor do I want to "troll" this topic. So, I will simply say the following ... your logic and your code is no where near doing what you think it is doing.
Reflect on that and take some time to analyse what is happening in your indicator, step by step, in a debugger or with prints or something. Or create a separate script to make it easier to analyse and debug the logic. You will find that you are comparing the higher time-frame data with future values of the lower-time frame data (not the past). You will also find that it is recalculating ("repainting") on each new bar and that you are comparing apples and oranges the further back you go.
You can do all this in private and reach a conclusion on your own, without suffering any hits to your ego. Yes, I fully understand that it hurts one's pride, when we are called out by others in public (it hurts really badly).
I repeat, the logic and the code is not doing what you think it is doing. Study it in private if you really want it to do what you intend it to do.
I did argue my points. You simply dismissed them. You did not even ask for clarification or even examples. You simply stated "...everything does work right, and this is the beauty...".
How exactly does one debate with another who only wishes to see through their own tint of rose-coloured glasses?
Conner, I do not wish to antagonise you, nor do I want to "troll" this topic. So, I will simply say the following ... your logic and your code is no where near doing what you think it is doing.
Reflect on that and take some time to analyse what is happening in your indicator, step by step, in a debugger or with prints or something. Or create a separate script to make it easier to analyse and debug the logic. You will find that you are comparing the higher time-frame data with future values of the lower-time frame data (not the past). You will also find that it is recalculating ("repainting") on each new bar and that you are comparing apples and oranges the further back you go.
You can do all this in private and reach a conclusion on your own, without suffering any hits to your ego. Yes, I fully understand that it hurts one's pride, when we are called out by others in public (it hurts really badly).
I repeat, the logic and the code is not doing what you think it is doing. Study it in private if you really want it to do what you intend it to do.
Did you not read my further posts? I already know you didn't. You don't want to understand the indicator. You're stuck in this thinking that one bar on a lower timeframe needs to be shifted to match a higher timeframe index.
That is how other MTF indicators work. That is not how this indicator works. If you want an expanded explanation, then read the previous posts, where I did make things very clear. Nobody else has said that they disagree with the logic ever since I had made it clear that the current timeframe must be the highest timeframe.
Ryan above understands.
Did you not read my further posts? I already know you didn't. You don't want to understand the indicator. You're stuck in this thinking that one bar on a lower timeframe needs to be shifted to match a higher timeframe index.
That is how other MTF indicators work. That is not how this indicator works. If you want an expanded explanation, then read the previous posts, where I did make things very clear. Nobody else has said that they disagree with the logic ever since I had made it clear that the current timeframe must be the highest timeframe.
Ryan above understands.
This is my last post here!
Yes, I did read every one of your posts and I will repeat, I fully understand your intent that you want to compare the "trend" (for lack of better term) of each of the different time-frames irrespective of their time alignment. I fully understand that you want to see if there is "Confluence" as if they were simply two graphs irrespective of their time.
But therein lies the problem—that is NOT what your code is doing. The ONLY place where your supposition holds true is at the current bar (and maybe one or two near it with some margin of error), not the remaining bars earlier, because you are looking into the future, not the past. I repeat, the keywords here are "future" vs "past". What you intend to see, is if there is "Confluence" of the current "trend" (lack of better term) of the higher time-frame vs that of the lower time-frame for the current and past data (not the future data, which is what you are doing in your code).
And as one looks further and further back in the plots you draw, the comparison between time-frames gets further apart, becoming a comparison between apples and oranges.
So, Conner, I repeat, it is you that is not paying attention. Probably because you simply do not understand what I am talking about. That is why I suggested that you debug it and analyse it step by step so that you can discover it on your own. But I will comment no further. If you don't understand or you are not willing to go research it on your, that is not my concern.
PS! As far as Ryan is concerned ... no comment!
I updated the indicator description now. I'm happy if anyone is finding the indicator useful. It's an experiment in price-time behaviour to prove that the price is never fractal-symmetric on the much lower timeframes. In theory, the tighter the lines are to each other - the safer it is to enter...but how long a trade could be held is still unknown with this information.