People who don't know why it works.. | Page 3 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Sharing: I know my method works, but I just can't follow it through 42 replies

Why contrarian trading works 3 replies

If it works, it works... 3 replies

Why an EA works for some currancies and not others? 10 replies

Attachments: People who don't know why it works..
Exit Attachments

People who don't know why it works..

  • #41
  • May 16, 2007 11:11am May 16, 2007 11:11am
Quoting twoblink
Your default is what?? What the program set for you? (I know you're a noob, but you know you can change the parameters right???)

I know people who use MACD(12,26,9) and I know people who use MACD(5,13,1). What is "default"?

And if you don't think they look pretty much the same, ok, you are right, I'm wrong. You win, I lose. Happy? Now you can wallow in your victory..
Why don't we stick to the subject? You like to call everyone stupid, that's your problem.

You made a statement without thinking it through or checking it out, and a noob caught you. Now, you could admit you were wrong, take a look, and maybe learn something yourself, or you can go on defending your statement. But what you are arguing is that J. Welles Wilder and Donald Lambert were so stupid as to invent the same thing and call it something different, and that they were unaware of the other's work. And you imply that you're smarter than both of them by saying RSI and CCI are exactly the same.

No, I didn't bother to change the parameters, I didn't have to go through even that much trouble to shine the light on you. I already had checked out the calculations before I posted, I didn't want to look like an idiot!
  • #42
  • May 16, 2007 11:30am May 16, 2007 11:30am
for those who don't want to participate in this pissing contest but who might like to find out what CCI and RSI indicators try to express, a 2 minute search of Google revealed the following


CCI

http://www.forexrealm.com/technical-...nel-index.html


RSI

http://www.forexrealm.com/technical-...gth-index.html
quote of the day: . It's like deja-vu all over again
  • #43
  • May 16, 2007 11:31am May 16, 2007 11:31am
Quoting WTB
My recommendation to those who are starting our or simply seeking honest improvement is to weed out the noise here in the factory. Search for those posters you reckon as knowledgeable and filter out the rest. Follow those few who actually know what they are talking about, read their posts and absorb their wisdom.

Too much noise in the Factory from those who don't know much but yet wouldnt want to listen...
OK. I suppose I bear some of the responsibility for this thread breaking down. Twoblink – My question of your original post (the seven sins) was not so much with your statement per se, but with the manner in which you made that statement. I do not question your credentials as a trader; nor do I feel it is necessary for you to post your CV, resume, or live trades. It is meaningless in the context of this discussion. Your post was taken at face value. I found it coarse. Apparently, I am not the only one. I attempted to point it out in a polite manner, but that doesn't seem to be your style. Sorry.

All: Please accept my apologies for stirring up this hornet’s nest and wasting your valuable time. Happy hunting...
  • #44
  • May 16, 2007 12:00pm May 16, 2007 12:00pm
Quoting Gmak
for those who don't want to participate in this pissing contest but who might like to find out what CCI and RSI indicators try to express, a 2 minute search of Google revealed the following


CCI

http://www.forexrealm.com/technical-...nel-index.html


RSI

http://www.forexrealm.com/technical-...gth-index.html
The major difference between the CCI and RSI is that the CCI is an unbounded oscillator, and the RSI is bounded. What this means is that the RSI is forced between two values, and the CCI can theoretically go to positive and negative infinity. MACD and Momentum are other examples of unbounded oscillators, and Stoch is another example of a bounded oscillator.

The formulas behind the CCI show that it is basically the current price (in this case, H+L+C/3) relative to a standard deviation of that price (the average absolute difference between current price and total average). It is just like taking a Bollinger Band, straightening out the center line, and plotting the price on it.

The RSI is almost like taking the momentum indicator and binding it between 0 and 100. Momentum is simply current price minus price from x periods ago (co-incidentally, it is the slope of an SMA with the same number of periods). If you took the difference between two consecutive bars from now to x periods ago, and added them up, mathematically, it would be the same exact thing as Momentum. What RSI does is take the ratio of the negative points between two consecutive bars to the positive points between two consecutive bars. The effect is somewhat like taking Momentum and binding it between two points, as it is only possible to have all negative consecutive bars (set to zero) or all positive consecutive bars (set to 100).
  • #45
  • May 16, 2007 12:04pm May 16, 2007 12:04pm
Quoting blueruby
Why don't we stick to the subject? You like to call everyone stupid, that's your problem.

You made a statement without thinking it through or checking it out, and a noob caught you. Now, you could admit you were wrong, take a look, and maybe learn something yourself, or you can go on defending your statement. But what you are arguing is that J. Welles Wilder and Donald Lambert were so stupid as to invent the same thing and call it something different, and that they were unaware of the other's work. And you imply that you're smarter than both of them by saying RSI and CCI are exactly the same.

No, I didn't bother to change the parameters, I didn't have to go through even that much trouble to shine the light on you. I already had checked out the calculations before I posted, I didn't want to look like an idiot!
Seriously man, not to be rude, but you haven't given me much proof that they are "very different" which is what you seem to be implying.. They look almost exactly the same to me, and that's because the base information in which they are derived are the same. They are kissing cousins.

Quote
No, I didn't bother to change the parameters, I didn't have to go through even that much trouble to shine the light on you.
So you were lazy?? I'm confused.. You use different parameters and that proves what?? Makes no sense whatsoever.. How did you "check out the calculations" and draw your conclusions, using different periods for each indicator??

How's this, you believe what you want to believe and if you think I spread "false information" say so. Have some guts and just say it. If you want to accuse me of something, say it, or shut up.

Sin #9) Being passive aggressive but at the same time, too chicken to make straight accusations..
google:
  • #46
  • May 16, 2007 12:08pm May 16, 2007 12:08pm
Quoting TopTick07
OK. I suppose I bear some of the responsibility for this thread breaking down. Twoblink – My question of your original post (the seven sins) was not so much with your statement per se, but with the manner in which you made that statement. I do not question your credentials as a trader; nor do I feel it is necessary for you to post your CV, resume, or live trades. It is meaningless in the context of this discussion. Your post was taken at face value. I found it coarse. Apparently, I am not the only one. I attempted to point it out in a polite manner, but that doesn't seem to be your style. Sorry.

All: Please accept my apologies for stirring up this hornet’s nest and wasting your valuable time. Happy hunting...
Apologies if I offended in you the process..
google:
  • #47
  • May 16, 2007 12:10pm May 16, 2007 12:10pm
Quoting Gmak
for those who don't want to participate in this pissing contest but who might like to find out what CCI and RSI indicators try to express, a 2 minute search of Google revealed the following


CCI

http://www.forexrealm.com/technical-...nel-index.html


RSI

http://www.forexrealm.com/technical-...gth-index.html
At the heart of both, is the Moving Average.. Because of this, when you set the # of periods to be the same, they will look almost alike..

Forget what I say, LOOK AT THE CHART..

Don't even trust my chart, pull up a CCI and an RSI for yourself..
google:
  • #48
  • May 16, 2007 12:15pm May 16, 2007 12:15pm
Quoting bluebuddha
The major difference between the CCI and RSI is that the CCI is an unbounded oscillator, and the RSI is bounded. What this means is that the RSI is forced between two values, and the CCI can theoretically go to positive and negative infinity. MACD and Momentum are other examples of unbounded oscillators, and Stoch is another example of a bounded oscillator.

The formulas behind the CCI show that it is basically the current price (in this case, H+L+C/3) relative to a standard deviation of that price (the average absolute difference between current price and total average). It is just like taking a Bollinger Band, straightening out the center line, and plotting the price on it.

The RSI is almost like taking the momentum indicator and binding it between 0 and 100. Momentum is simply current price minus price from x periods ago (co-incidentally, it is the slope of an SMA with the same number of periods). If you took the difference between two consecutive bars from now to x periods ago, and added them up, mathematically, it would be the same exact thing as Momentum. What RSI does is take the ratio of the negative points between two consecutive bars to the positive points between two consecutive bars. The effect is somewhat like taking Momentum and binding it between two points, as it is only possible to have all negative consecutive bars (set to zero) or all positive consecutive bars (set to 100).
The way I generally interpret it is this: RSI is relative to itself and 0 and 100. CCI is just relative to itself.

When you "unbind" RSI, it looks like CCI and visa versa. (except blueruby doesn't think so..)

Seriously folks, pull up a chart, take a look at it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.. If you think the two indicators look similar, then I'm right. If not, then blueruby is right. You have eyes, look for yourself.
google:
  • #49
  • May 16, 2007 12:37pm May 16, 2007 12:37pm

I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact I had made the same observation myself when playing with various indicators.


Still, sometimes there is divergence.


I suppose what I was trying to point out was that information was easily available to all who wanted to look and who could then decide for themselves, rather than witness you and blueruby argue the toss.


to ask you a question though.


There are plenty of systems out there that use a combination of RSI and CCI as confirmation indicators.


Are you saying that such systems might as well do away with one or the other as it is essentially redundant?


IE a comparison of the 14 and 21 RSI's would to all intents and purposes always give the same signals as if one were to compare a 14 RSI to a 21 CCI.

quote of the day: . It's like deja-vu all over again
  • #50
  • May 16, 2007 12:46pm May 16, 2007 12:46pm
Quoting Gmak
Still, sometimes there is divergence.
Most of the time that divergence is because of one being bounded and the other being unbounded, which is why I pointed out that this was the biggest difference between RSI and CCI.

Quoting Gmak
There are plenty of systems out there that use a combination of RSI and CCI as confirmation indicators.

Are you saying that such systems might as well do away with one or the other as it is essentially redundant?


In my opinion, the subtle differences between RSI and CCI could be exploited for a trade signal or confirmation. Using two unbounded oscillators (ie: CCI and MACD) or two bounded oscillators (ie: RSI and Stoch) for this purpose would be redundant. But I don't know if TB would agree with that entire statement.

  • #51
  • May 16, 2007 12:56pm May 16, 2007 12:56pm
Quoting Gmak

I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact I had made the same observation myself when playing with various indicators.


Still, sometimes there is divergence.


I suppose what I was trying to point out was that information was easily available to all who wanted to look and who could then decide for themselves, rather than witness you and blueruby argue the toss.


to ask you a question though.


There are plenty of systems out there that use a combination of RSI and CCI as confirmation indicators.


Are you saying that such systems might as well do away with one or the other as it is essentially redundant?


IE a comparison of the 14 and 21 RSI's would to all intents and purposes always give the same signals as if one were to compare a 14 RSI to a 21 CCI.

John Bollinger talks about it, and he's probably the clearest reference about it.

Asking RSI and CCI..

That's like Asking your mom who's the cutest kid, and then asking your dad to confirm it.

You can't ask two indicators who have the same data.. Newbie mistake that kills..

Divergence = the indicator broke.. <-- Words of wisdom from a man I owe much to..
google:
  • #52
  • May 16, 2007 1:00pm May 16, 2007 1:00pm
sorry bluebuddha, i managed to miss your entire post.

I entirely understand your point, thankyou.
quote of the day: . It's like deja-vu all over again
  • #53
  • May 16, 2007 1:03pm May 16, 2007 1:03pm
Hehhe.. found the quote:

Quote
“One shouldn't use a price-based indicator to confirm another price-based indicator. It's like asking your mother if she's proud of you.”

http://www.technicalanalyst.co.uk/bollinger.pdf

Hope that helps..
google:
  • #54
  • Edited 1:41pm May 16, 2007 1:37pm | Edited 1:41pm
good article with some persuasive advice.

"

One shouldn't use a price-based indicator
to confirm another price-based indicator.
It's like asking your mother if she's proud
of you. Of course we know what the
answer will be. Instead I prefer to combine
indicators based on price, volume and
volatility. This way our indicators are each
based on different aspects of the market.
When they all confirm I know the probability

is they are sending me the correct message."


I especially like his analysis of how to use bollinger bands in conjunction with stochastics.
quote of the day: . It's like deja-vu all over again
  • #55
  • May 16, 2007 1:40pm May 16, 2007 1:40pm
Yes, because RSI and CCI ARE ALMOST THE SAME, I mean LOOK AT THE BLOODY CHART!

to use them to confirm each other is death.. There are those who are eager to join the skull and crossbones, for whatever reason.. Death is looming all around you, you need not chase it..
google:
  • #56
  • May 16, 2007 1:57pm May 16, 2007 1:57pm
Quoting twoblink
This is what I tell my students:

Before you ask, type it into google, chances are you'll find your answers..

Sin #0) If you don't know how to use a search engine, then don't trade forex, and quite while you are behind...
your students. meaning you are a paid mentor of some sort. this obligates you to give them speedy answers. i would want my money back quick if any paid anybody told me to look it up for myself.

what? you think google is your god of information? think again. nothing beats an explanation from an experienced trader. yes, even something as simple as typical trendlines. it sticks better in their mind knowing the definition was told by you.

having said that, if any of your students ever became very successful and got asked to name some influences, be assured your name will not be mentioned. "who twoblinks? you mean THAT GUY who told me to google it?"

i on the other hand, am not obligated so i can ridicule noobs as i please.

Quoting twoblink
Kermut,
Yes, I know that adds up to 200%, but that's reality, if you aren't giving it 200%, you aren't going to succeed in Forex.
so wrong. on so many levels..
BAM BAM BOOM! -bravado
  • #57
  • May 16, 2007 1:58pm May 16, 2007 1:58pm
Well I don't know about death, but there's certainly a fat bloke with halitosis who lives next door. I never intended to pursue him.


Glad this thread is now producing something positive.

lesson1:

if you wish to incorporate different indicators into your system, it would be far more advisable to use ones which look at different market characteristics

lesson2:

Pale Ebanezer thought it wrong to fight,
but Roaring Bill (who killed him), thought it right.

Hooray!

quote of the day: . It's like deja-vu all over again
  • #58
  • May 16, 2007 2:01pm May 16, 2007 2:01pm
Quote
i on the other hand, am not obligated so i can ridicule noobs as i please.

Great quote!

None of my students ever come into class without looking it up first...

When they are rich, why should they mention me?? I did what they paid me to do.. No big deal.

Quote
so wrong. on so many levels..

What, you don't believe in Truthiness?? Forex comes from THE GUT..
google:
  • #59
  • May 16, 2007 2:35pm May 16, 2007 2:35pm
Quoting twoblink
Seriously man, not to be rude, but you haven't given me much proof that they are "very different" which is what you seem to be implying.. They look almost exactly the same to me, and that's because the base information in which they are derived are the same. They are kissing cousins.
I'll accept your changing your statement as your admitting you're wrong. Now you say "they look almost exactly the same" instead of "they are exactly the same". I'll buy that they look nearly the same in many spots.

Quote
So you were lazy?? I'm confused.. You use different parameters and that proves what?? Makes no sense whatsoever.. How did you "check out the calculations" and draw your conclusions, using different periods for each indicator??

We can all see you're confused, that's the whole issue. That, and your superiority complex. Geez, comparing me to Chinese peasants, your superior attitude knows no bounds. No, I was not lazy. Unlike you, I went to investopedia, looked up the formulas of how they were calculated, and understood them BEFORE I posted a statement that would make me look stupid.

Quote
How's this, you believe what you want to believe and if you think I spread "false information" say so. Have some guts and just say it. If you want to accuse me of something, say it, or shut up.

You are incredibly dense. I think saying you were full of beans (a polite way of saying "full of $h!+") "looks almost exactly the same as" saying you spread false information.

Quote
Sin #9) Being passive aggressive but at the same time, too chicken to make straight accusations..

Geez, man, that really hurts. I'm being as outwardly aggressive as I know how to! And, I'm not chicken. I was the kid on the playground that beat up the bullies, that's where I'm comin' from!
  • #60
  • May 16, 2007 2:36pm May 16, 2007 2:36pm
Quoting Taters
.... So, while I do value FF, it does not get me into the Skull and Bones Club....
I don't wish to die, but the above was an oblique reference to the secretive Skull and Bones society ( Google it! : ) which has spawned many a nefarious captain of industry and state. I was implying that Googling forex and posting to FF won't gain me admittance to the elite traders club.

Carry on!
-Taters
0 traders viewing now