|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Fred,
thank you for the reply.
Yes I read your messages, they are interesting, but, it is not a
matter of my opinion or your opinion. What is written in AFL function
reference is the subject.
As Tomasz wrote, the DEMA and the EMA-equivalent match after the
initial period. I do not see this in my gifs posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/message/38859
Take a look.
DT
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> Dimitris,
>
> I tried to explain this the other day ... maybe you didn't see my
> post or have my email on ignore but I'll take another shot in case
> you are listening ...
>
> EMA is or should be equivalent to AMA when one is using a constant
> for the length but for whatever reason the way that EMA is
> implemented it takes a bunch of bars to catch up to AMA or vice
versa
> depending on your point of view. In a 10 bar EMA it takes 43 bars
> before EMA and AMA have the same value following which they both
have
> the same values.
>
> DEMA appears to be using an adaptation of AMA for it's calculations
> as opposed to EMA as it produces plotable points right away. Here
> again if one compares DEMA with ones own calculation for DEMA using
> AMA and EMA the AMA version is identical to the imbedded DEMA and
the
> EMA version takes awhile to be on the same track.
>
> Best Regards, Fred
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "DIMITRIS TSOKAKIS"
<TSOKAKIS@xxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tomasz Janeczko"
> > <amibroker@xxxx>
> >
> > > > DEMA is perfectly OK. The same with TEMA, WMA, etc.
> >
> > What do you mean "perfectly OK".
> > After how many bars the built-in DEMA matches its EMA-equivalent
> > described in your DEMA comment in AFL function reference.
> > I have already posted #38859 with full explanatory codes and gifs
> > showing the divergence of DEMA and EMA-equivalent.
> > Did you read this message ?
> > Would you apply equally DEMA or EMA-equivalent in a trading
system?
> > Would you equally rely upon any of these two "equivalent"
formulas ?
> > Would you trade your money based on DEMA or, equally, on EMA-
> > equivalent?
> > This would be "perfectly OK"
> > If for a certain bar DEMA gives you 9 and the EMA-equivalent
gives
> > 11, then it is not perfectly OK, I could say it is quite far from
> any
> > reliability idea.
> > I did not understand your reply, except if you didnīt read #38859
> > Dimitris Tsokakis
> > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading!
Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/AG3JAA/GHeqlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|