Indicators: FractalsNoRedraw
It does not redraw a fractal in principle, because it is a model with 5 bars, 2 bars on the right and two on the left, and what redraws is not a fractal. What some people call a fractal by looking at 4 bars is fundamentally wrong, it is like saying a bicycle is a moped and then stressing that my bicycle is better because it has a motor. But a bicycle and a moped are different things.
I may be wrong, but this model belongs to Williams, and he clearly described it, that it is from "5 consecutive bars", not from 3, not 4 and not 7, but from 5.
It is like making up and saying: Fibonacci Fork, Gann channel, Andrews numbers, but they didn't have that.
You have corrected something that was not a fractal yet, although the original works perfectly and without fail, namely, it shows a fractal.
Moreover, the original is more informative, it gives the trader an opportunity to see the formation of the fractal in advance, and prepare for trading in advance, and yours does not give informativeness in this form, it shows the history, but we do not trade history.
I put a minus.
Thanks for your detailed comment and interest. Response.
As Williams describes the fractal in his book "Trading Chaos":
Remember the working definition:
A fractal must have two previous and twosubsequent bars with lower tops (higherbottoms).
There is nothing about the last of the five bars to be formed in the definition, you can see for yourself. Accordingly, the zero bar, the second of the following bars, can already form a fractal at the opening, if other conditions are fulfilled. It follows that the implementation of MQ is correct and if the fractal appears but disappears, it means that there was a fractal (at a certain point in time the conditions were fulfilled. However, such formulation carries uncertainty (possibility of fractal disappearance). This is what has been corrected in my version.
I may be wrong of course, but this model belongs to Williams, and he clearly described it, that it is from "5 consecutive bars", not from 3, not 4 and not 7, but exactly from 5 bars
The fact that the model belongs to Williams is stated. The fact that there are 5 bars is not correct, it can be 6:
Model "D" requires six bars to form a fractal, because the top of the fifth bar is almost equal to the preceding top
However, neither MQ nor I have emphasised this.
You fixed something that was not yet a fractal, although the original works perfectly and without fail, namely, it shows a fractal.
That's exactly what I did. As I wrote above, I corrected the uncertainty, i.e., roughly speaking, I added a condition: all bars that make up the fractal must be formed.
Moreover, the original is more informative, it gives the trader an opportunity to see the formation of the fractal in advance, and to prepare for trading in advance, and yours does not give informativeness in this form, it shows the history, but we do not trade history.
This is your subjective opinion, you should not impose it on others. For example, there may be such a situation: you need to trawl a position on a fractal (fractal). And here the disappearance of the last fractal can play a cruel joke.
I do not force you to use this indicator instead of the standard one. I only give people an alternative.
Thanks for your detailed comment and interest. Response.
As Williams describes the fractal in his book "Trading Chaos":
There is nothing about the fact that the last of the five bars must be formed in the definition, you can see for yourself. Accordingly, the zero bar, the second of the following bars, can already form a fractal at the opening, if the other conditions are fulfilled. It follows that the implementation of MQ is correct and if the fractal appears but disappears, it means that there was a fractal (at a certain point in time the conditions were fulfilled. However, such formulation carries uncertainty (possibility of fractal disappearance). This is what has been corrected in my version.
The fact that the model belongs to Williams is indicated. The fact that there are 5 bars is not correct, it can be 6:
However, neither MQ nor I emphasised this.
That's exactly what I did. As I wrote above, I corrected the uncertainty, i.e., roughly speaking, I added a condition: all bars that make up the fractal must be formed.
This is your subjective opinion, you should not impose it on others. For example, there may be such a situation: it is necessary to trawl a position on a fractal (fractal). And here the disappearance of the last fractal can play a cruel joke.
I do not force you to use this indicator instead of the standard one. I only give people an alternative.
You again about your own =)
"And here the disappearance of the last fractal can play a cruel joke. " can't fractal disappear, because you can't go back to the past.
Let me write again: a fractal is a pattern of 5 bars, and if the fifth bar is not formed yet, it is not a fractal, and you don't need to do anything with it - it doesn't exist yet! Regarding the trawl... trawl is not based on the graphical object, but on the programme code, and the code of forming the last bar is already embedded there, and the trawl will not work before.
"The fact that there are 5 bars is not true, it can be 6:" - A model of 6 bars? Show me a quote where the creator (Williams) of this model wrote about 6 bars, we are talking about his design, not one made up by someone.
"I'm just giving people an alternative." - here was the answer: "the original is more informative, it gives the trader an opportunity to see the formation of the fractal in advance and to prepare for trading in advance, while yours is not informative".
I don't think that the worst of the best should be offered as an alternative. The most depressing thing is that the codebase is being clogged up again with all sorts of "nepotribe", and it is becoming more and more difficult to find normal things in this pile of junk.
It does not redraw a fractal in principle, because it is a model with 5 bars, 2 bars on the right and two on the left, and what redraws is not a fractal. What some people call a fractal by looking at 4 bars is fundamentally wrong, it is like saying a bicycle is a moped and then stressing that my bicycle is better because it has a motor. But a bicycle and a moped are different things.
I may be wrong, but this model belongs to Williams, and he clearly described it, that it is from "5 consecutive bars", not from 3, not 4 and not 7, but from 5.
It is like making up and saying: Fibonacci Fork, Gann channel, Andrews numbers, but they didn't have that.
You have corrected something that was not a fractal yet, although the original works perfectly and without fail, namely, it shows a fractal.
Moreover, the original is more informative, it gives the trader an opportunity to see the formation of the fractal in advance, and prepare for trading in advance, and yours does not give informativeness in this form, it shows the history, but we do not trade history.
I put a minus.
If you have created this "miracle", how can it help in trading?
I consider the fact that it appears in advance a plus and the possibility to place a pending order (in terms of time, among other things), and how fractals sometimes pass quickly - everyone knows, and you just saw that it was formed (it's like "start", "attention" and "false start" or "start")!
Even the alligator is shifted to the future and considered with the fractals together.
I will try your creation to use together with the standard fractal as a barrier to stay out early! =)
If you have created this "miracle", then explain how it can help in trading?
I removed it just to exclude "false starts" completely. Nobody forbids you to use the standard fractal indicator.
I rewrote my idea! =)
In fact, I didn't even immediately understand your idea, because the description is very ambiguous "The peculiarity of this indicator is that it is not redrawn".
I immediately understood the idea as follows - the standard draws and removes in case of non-confirmation, yours leaves! Why? And it turned out that it does not draw it until all bars are not formed at closing!
So why not write clearly? "Fractal is formed (drawn, appears) after its confirmation on closing of all bars, necessary bars!" - this is an option!
And you have come out like that - "You can't be pardoned", where you want to put a comma!
And it is very uncultured to answer - go use another, what you want and so on and so forth.
You have put the indicator in the public domain be ready to answer questions! Or immediately write in your incomprehensible title "Questions are not accepted, use whatever you want!".
I can also answer you: "Go better to drop potatoes and do not get involved in fractals, you are not very good at it!". Would that make you feel good?
Thank you for your labour!
And it is very uncultured to answer - go use another, what you want and so on and so forth.
You put the indicator in the public domain, be ready to answer questions! Or immediately write in your incomprehensible title "Questions are not accepted, use whatever you want!".
I can also answer you: "Go better go potato digging and do not get involved in fractals, you are not very good at it!". Would that make you feel good?
Thank you for your labour!
I did not send you anywhere, just said that there is always an alternative.
You are welcome to use it:)
I didn't send you anywhere, I just said that there is always an alternative.
You are welcome to use it:)
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
FractalsNoRedraw:
Bill Williams' fractals indicator based on the built-in Fractals indicator. The distinctive feature of this indicator is that it doesn't repaint.
Author: Tapochun