|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I have no idea, you tell me. What I posted is the widely accepted
formula for PFE at least in TS. If you've got a different formula
post it.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "MarkF2" <feierstein@xxxx> wrote:
> Is that all the indicator does (subtract the close from 9 bars ago
> from the current close)? Is that even the same formula I was
talking
> about? Is it possible for an indicator containing close
> differentials to be of geometric construction? How about form a
> geometric sequence? If so, how many different ways can this
> theoretically be accomplished?
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> > It is ? I wouldn't call any indicator that's subtracing the
close
> > from 9 bars ago from the current bars of geometric construction,
> > would you ?
> >
> > From the TradeStation code ...
> >
> > vars: PFE(0), C2C(0), COUNTER(0), FRACEFF(0), EMA(0);
> >
> > PFE = 0;
> > C2C = 0;
> > COUNTER = 0;
> > FRACEFF = 0;
> > EMA = 0;
> >
> > PFE = Squareroot(Power(Close - Close[9], 2) + 100);
> >
> > for COUNTER = 1 to 9 begin
> > C2C = C2C + Squareroot(Power((Close[COUNTER - 1] - Close
> > [COUNTER]),2) + 1);
> > end;
> >
> > if (Close - Close[9]) > 0 then
> > FRACEFF = Round((PFE / C2C) * 100,0)
> > else
> > FRACEFF = Round(-(PFE / C2C) * 100,0);
> >
> > if Currentbar = 1 then
> > EMA = FRACEFF
> > else
> > EMA = Round((FRACEFF * 0.333) + (EMA[1] * (1 - 0.333)),0);
> >
> > Plot1(EMA,"E");
> > Plot2(50,"BUYZONE");
> > Plot3(-50,"SELLZONE");
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "MarkF2" <feierstein@xxxx>
wrote:
> > > All systems that behave accordingly are dimensionally
coherent. But
> > > need to be careful about generalizing that all geometric
indicator
> > > constructions, for example, are dimensionally coherent. Hans
> > Hannula's
> > > fractal efficiency indicator is a geometric construction but it
> > > combines price and time variables so that the indicator doesn't
> > retain
> > > the relative importance of price and time changes when the axes
are
> > > rescaled independently of each other. But some people would
never
> > see
> > > that from just looking at the formula, which is why I suggested
the
> > > simple and simpler approaches.
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> > > > But the simplistic explanation remains the same ... doesn't
it ?
> > The
> > > > simple and/or complex systems I write and trade could care
less
> > if
> > > > prices are factored up or down by 100.
> > > >
> > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "MarkF2" <feierstein@xxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Fred- If you want simplistic, I'll give you simple and
> > simpler :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Simple. Apply Eckhardt's c-Test for dimensional
coherency:
> > > > > "In essence, the c-test transforms relevant formulas in an
> > indicator
> > > > > or system by multiplying every price term by a positive
> > constant c
> > > > (c
> > > > > not equal to 1), while leaving nonprice terms the same. If
the
> > > > > transformed indicator or system gives the same indications
or
> > > > signals
> > > > > as the original, then it has passed the c-test. If not, the
> > > > > formulation in question is incoherent and depends
unacceptably
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > units chosen."
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Simpler. Make two test data files, one with actual data
and
> > the
> > > > > second with the price terms multiplied by a constant not
equal
> > to
> > > > 1.
> > > > > put them in a single group and have AmiBroker do the work
by
> > > > comparing
> > > > > indicators and test results on the two files.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can use these tools to test your theory which, by the
way,
> > with
> > > > > complex formulas, is not a simplistic approach :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx>
wrote:
> > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my wanting to think of
things
> > in
> > > > > > simplistic terms what I get out of this is, if one
constructs
> > > > > systems
> > > > > > based on geometric oriented relationships then the
> > relationship
> > > > is
> > > > > > the same after the change as it was before but not so
with
> > > > devices
> > > > > > constructed based on arithmetic relationships. This is
> > roughly (
> > > > > or
> > > > > > more so ) equivalent to viewing charts based on a log
> > scale .vs.
> > > > on
> > > > > > an arithmetic scale, the second of which by definition
> > provides a
> > > > > > distorted view.
> > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/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/
|