----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:56
PM
Subject: [amibroker] TimeFrames: Is their
use flawed?
I hate to rock the boat but this has been nagging me for quite some
time.
In EOD trading TimeFrames can be synchronized with significant date
boundaries, like weeks, months, years etc. and sometimes this may make some
sense. However, TimeFrame Indicators need to reach full period before they
update. This means that TF indicators can lag a number of bars equal to the
number of bars in the TimeFrame period. Why would anyone work with lagging
indicators?
In RealTime, TimeFrame periods are synchronized with the start of regular
trading day. Here again, the TF indicators need to reach full period before
they update. This means that a RT signal based on a 15Min TF indicator, on a
1-min chart, may lag up to 14 minutes.
There must be some reasons why TimeFrames are still used and I welcome your
explanation. If they solely exist because they were used some 75 years ago, to
simplify hand calculations, then perhaps it is time to move on :-)
best regards,
herman