|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Just in case someone finds it interesting, the expression
(Mov(C,2,S)+
Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S)+
Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(Mov(C,2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S),2,S))/10;
can be written down in the following analytical form:
(C*1023+Ref(C,-1)*2036+Ref(C,-2)*1981+
Ref(C,-3)*1816+Ref(C,-4)*1486+Ref(C,-5)*1024+
Ref(C,-6)*562+Ref(C,-7)*232+Ref(C,-8)*67+
Ref(C,-9)*12+Ref(C,-10))/10240
I don't know about you (though I can bet that most of you would tend
to agree), but to me it seems like there's no magic to it :)
I have a relative post at my blog http://mc73.wordpress.com
It's in my native language, so probably you won't find it of much use.
Regards,
mc
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxx> wrote:
>
> Superfragalist:
>
>
>
> You are dead RIGHT and thanks for this thoughtful posting.
>
>
>
> Lionel
>
>
>
> From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of superfragalist
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:54 AM
> To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] RMO sizzle adjusted moving averages
& zero
> lag oscillators
>
>
>
> The name RMO is all about marketing. In the world of TA nearly all
> indicators are sold on the "mystery" and not the performance.
>
> It's selling the sizzle rather than the steak. If Equis had said,
> we're putting in the Rainbow OSC into MS 10, want to upgrade? Well,
> you better step back because the stampede is coming!
>
> Equis built a whole marketing campaign around the RMO based on what a
> great system it is. It's performance is based on the same fundamental
> issue. In a definitive trend nearly anything works well. This premise
> about definitive trends seems so simple, but many people ignore it, or
> worse, assume they get it. The best book that really defines the
> importance of knowing the trend is How I Trade for a Living by Gary
> Smith.
>
> Anytime something comes out that's new, the code hacks start the
> reverse engineering. Often it's simple.
>
> It's surprising how much mystery sells. My favorite example is the CS
> Scientific expert based on fuzzy logic. There are more questions on
> that than any other expert in MS. It's amazing how many people think
> it's the most accurate expert in MS. Many people have tried to track
> down the developer, the company or anyone that knew them so they can
> "buy" the code.
>
> When I tell people it's simply a moving average crossover, they think
> I'm lying to them, or I don't know what I'm talking about. Moving
> average crossovers are based on stocastics so they're fundamental
> fuzzy logic equations. In the ribbon indicator, there's a std dev
> thrown in so now it's really getting into deeper fuzzy logic.
>
> Mystery is wonderful. It just doesn't make anyone but the seller any
> money.
>
> Super
>
> --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com> , pumrysh <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > GV,
> >
> > You are correct, I would like to see an easier version of the
> > indicator even though I know that a SMA(6) is very close. While 1%
> > at this quick/short of a lookback is not much I can't help but think
> > that the further out you go the bigger the difference would be.
> >
> > I also mentioned that not all programmers lay all their cards on the
> > table. I was talking about myself, not Wabbit. To see all of the
> > Equis forum discussion go to:
> >
> > http://forum.equis.com/forums/thread/23170.aspx
> >
> > As far as the RMO versus the Rainbow, I would have to say that
> > little was ever published about the Rainbow. What we have then is an
> > enhanced version of the Rainbow which happens to be called the RMO
> > and that's quite okay. Maybe the name should be changed to "RMO...an
> > enhanced Rainbow Oscillator System".
> >
> > I'm really glad that you have been able to learn something from the
> > discussion. If we've stimulated some other minds as well then its
> > been a really good day.
> >
> >
> > Preston
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com> , "Vasanth Mohan G Buddaan"
> > <vgbudawn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I take Preston saying "...and would love to see a shorter / easier
> > version of it" to be an invitation to take the discussion further.
> > >
> > > Actually wabbit himself in his post has nicely dissected the
> > recursive averaging to its well approximated simpler version as
> > below;
> > >
> > > "...it might be interesting to note that the
> > AverageOfMovingAverages (the mathematical average of the ten 2 bar
> > SMAs) is ALMOST the same as a much more simple expression, Mov
> > (C,6,S). If you compare the PRECISE VALUES of the
> > AverageOfMovingAverages and the Mov(C,6,S) there is always a small
> > difference, but, if you compare the instances when the CLOSE crosses
> > the AverageOfMovingAverages and the instances when the CLOSE crosses
> > the Mov(C,6,S) they are the same, with about 3-4% error. If you
> > apply one bar latitude in either direction, the two expressions are
> > the same within 1%. Thefore, for testing when the CLOSE crosses the
> > AverageOfMovingAverages the trader could easily substitute Mov
> > (C,6,S) for the more complicated expression."
> > >
> > >
> > > But what I was more interested in RMO was not the formula in
> > itself which when the indicator itself is available has no more
> > additional use but how it, so well, tackled the 'gaps' or the
> > wildness of a couple of ticks in the direction opposite to the
> > trend / position. Most usual MACO system would have created a lag
> > and if a signal had been generated in that skew it would have
> > carried on for quite a while but was not so in RMO. When the whole
> > Rainbow Indicator formula itself is taken for studying, the process
> > does not become obvious but when the simplified version of wabbit is
> > considered it makes eminent sense.
> > >
> > > What better way than to average the skewedness of a couple of
> > ticks with more saner ones prior or past to them to reduce the
> > impact of this skew. Simple averaging of essentially a short period
> > makes sure equal weightage is given to the saner ones regardles of
> > their positioning - whether before or after the 'gaps' / the sudden
> > spurts thereby reducing the impact of this few stray behaviour of
> > the market while still in a larger trend. Then the resultant output
> > can always be used for long period averaging to make sure one sits
> > through the trend inspite of these few stray & adverse ticks. In
> > hindsight, it all looks so very simple & logical. I seriously wonder
> > whether the the designer of RMO himself realised it, for if he had,
> > he could very well have gone for the long period exponential
> > averaging of the simple moving averaging like Mov( Mov(C,6,S) , 81 ,
> > E ) instead of choosing to average the Rainbow Indicator thereby
> > losing some amount of original thinking.
> > >
> > > While wild moves of very short term in nature is ignored, the
> > adverse effect of this would be a much more severe lag because of
> > the initial simple averaging. In other words, this sytem while
> > avoiding smaller and sharper strayness would either get into the
> > trend later but by which time the probability of trend having set in
> > would have become high. By same logic, it would also get out of the
> > trend later. Or take bigger loses / bigger whipsaws when prices
> > trade in larger ranges due to its lack of sensitivity. That is,
> > while avoiding smaller whipsaws it will take larger ones (though
> > they may be fewer) but also lose good amount of profits at the time
> > of exits even when in trend which explains the words of Big
> > Papa "..For all the testing of the RMO I have done, it is good at
> > getting in, but terrible at getting out.."
> > >
> > > The limitation of any Moving Average System has probably been best
> > described by Preston...
> > > "If the lag is removed then there are more whipsaws. If the
> > whipsaws
> > > are dampened, then the moving average is later to the party. There
> > is
> > > only so much information that can be extracted from price and
> > volume
> > > data no matter how many ways it is tortured, twisted and
> > manipulated."
> > >
> > > Must thank everybody who contributed for a good learning period
> > for me.
> > > gv
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "pumrysh" <no_reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > To: <equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:01 AM
> > > Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: adjusted moving averages
> > &zerolagoscillators
> > >
> > >
> > > > GV,
> > > >
> > > > Today you have learned the formula to the RMO/Rainbow and that
> > > > programmers never lay all there cards on the table.
> > > >
> > > > I'd say you've learned quite a bit.
> > > >
> > > > I actually like the recursive moving average and would love to
> > see a
> > > > shorter / easier version of it.
> > > >
> > > > Preston
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:equismetastock-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:equismetastock-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|