|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
You never said much of anything as far as I can tell.
Take your prozac and be a good little boy.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "MarkF2" <feierstein@xxxx> wrote:
> I never said PFE. I was talking about Hannula's fractal efficiency
> indicator in Eckhardt's article which is a variant, but what's your
> point? The only practical issue I see in your previous post is that
an
> indicator containing the condition C-Ref(C,-9) can be dimensionally
> coherent or not depending on what else is in the indicator, easily
> verified by either of the two methods I posted earlier. If you want
to
> debate semantics, get your facts straight, start a semantics thread
> and do it with someone else.
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> > 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/
|