Disliked{image} Centered Moving Average 16 is decelerating we suspect CMA 16(red) is building its Low {image}Ignored
1
Broker Challenge "NDD/STP" vs. True "ECN" and "Mkt Mkr" broker talk 46 replies
Leap of faith... 18 replies
The old "Control Points" vs. "Every Tick" testing question 2 replies
Leap of Faith 9 replies
Leap of Faith 6 replies
Disliked{image} Centered Moving Average 16 is decelerating we suspect CMA 16(red) is building its Low {image}Ignored
DislikedWould everyone agree that a Double Top is always preceded by a 16x32x64 crossing? {image}Ignored
Disliked{quote} Always ? it depends you have theory and practice. In theory yes, always. In pratice not every time. Too, from my statistics based on periods and crossing between cycles CMA, in average yes. So we can conclude that the averages statistic rejoins the theory in general. Here a statistic approach on a data of ES 1min timeframe, 500days You can see the average of period from 64 to 32 is 29 bars (cross to cross) and 4 crossing between CMA 64 and 16 {image} Picture for CMA 32 and 16 between both {image}Ignored
DislikedWould everyone agree that a Double Top is always preceded by a 16x32x64 crossing? {image}Ignored
Disliked{quote} Correction: We have theory, practice and **codable**... So, though it may not be true 100% of the time, if it allows for a codable rule it may be "good enough". So, let me re-phrase the question: Is it "good enough" to assume that Double Tops / Bottoms are preceded by a 16x32x64 crossing? This does NOT mean that a 16x32x64 crossing is followed by a Double Top / Bottom. However, it DOES mean that one property of Double Tops / Bottoms is they are preceded by a 16x32x64 crossing. My goal is to algorithmically detect Double Tops / Bottoms....Ignored
DislikedHARMONY GOLD 1 H Double Top {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image}Ignored
Disliked{quote} This one I'm not so sure of. The double tops are further apart than what I'm used to seeing. But we'll see...Ignored
Disliked{quote} This would be based on normal pattern recognition a triple top already and not a double top... I can see though why through the MAs it COULD be considered a double top.. but then again you see the MA symmetry or whatever you want to call it in on the left already showing the double top too and just 3rd touch up after. So if that helps I wouldn't recognize this anymore as a normal double top.Ignored
Disliked{quote} @FundedCoffee -- I updated my post to include a chart after you had posted. Another clue as to why I don't think its a Double Top is because it is not preceded by a 16x32x64 crossing. I'm not claiming that my definition is correct all the time or that it is superior to discretion, but as I'm focusing on creating a codable set of rules that are "good enough" at detecting Double Tops / Bottoms then I need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.Ignored
Disliked{quote} This one I'm not so sure of. The double tops are further apart than what I'm used to seeing. But we'll see... {image}Ignored