On My Way To The Top

Very interesting....I've played around with the slingshot trades using the bringing back sexy back stochastics and my own little deviations of it and its been very very useful but I've never thought of combining it along with the actual trading method that we are currently using just to have extra pieces of information but not sure if that would be overcomplicating it for anyone else...I personally know what I'm looking for so it would be fine for me but not sure for others...but so to answer the question despichtt I am quite familiar with boxingislife's sexy thread...spud referred to it in one of his threads so I checked it out around the same time I discovered spuds thread last year hehe...the concept has stuck with me since than...so yes I must look into this...lol the stochastics are so powerful and can be employed in so so many different ways its kind of crazy lol...but very useful...have you tried the mtf with sexy stochs in combination live...

Paul

hi,

FIRST: CloseCandle option:
1. this works correctly for DISPLAY Stoch line and Bars:
Still useful if one wants a Rope without the last candle for instance.

2. BUT it is most properly not correct for the alerter.

I don't want to get stopped by this too much (otherwise who knows if we finish it: so I have decided for the start to skip in the up comming alerter the Close Candle option completely.


SECONDLY:
find attached the Multi Time Frame MA which should paint till the end in live situations.

Options are very similar to the stoch.

I have included a couple of useful things like Direction Color , and an useful Alerter: when price is close or at the MA. Can be used also with Vlines and all the other stuff.

e.g. log:
2011.03.25 22:02;EURUSD;Alert_PriceCloseToMA COMING FROM BELOW
2011.03.25 22:05;EURUSD;Alert_PriceCloseToMA COMING FROM ABOVE
2011.03.25 22:06;EURUSD;Alert_PriceCloseToMA COMING FROM BELOW
2011.03.25 22:07;EURUSD;Alert_PriceCloseToMA COMING FROM ABOVE
2011.03.25 22:10;EURUSD;Alert_PriceCloseToMA COMING FROM BELOW
2011.03.25 22:17;EURUSD;Alert_PriceCloseToMA COMING FROM ABOVE

Offset 10 pips

NOTE: I consider only the Candle close price: So for past data one might want to keep that in mind.


( Live data should be any real time can not test it at the moment)

HOMEWORK

hi guys,

maybe a couple of things for the coming week.

Could you both check out a couple of things: and each one write a feedback (so we can compare problems)


USE THE ATTACHED INDIES:
MJMovingAverage_v1.00.ex4
MJStochastic_v1.01.ex4

NOTE: It is MORE important that the underlying base indicators are first of all correct - than any alerts.

IMPORTANT DEACTIVATE the <alertsOn>


and test it really with different TF, settings, very long once short once etc.etc


===STOCHASTIC:

1.
compare The MJ-MTF Stoch line to an original stoch on a higher TF
(e.g. MJ-MTF-Stoch M30 on a 5Minutes Chart - with an original Metatrade Stoch on a 30M Chart. )

2.
compare it with the existing #MTF stoch
Attached: #MTF Stochastic v2.0.mq4)

3.
compare The MJ-MTF Color Bars - to be correct in accordance with a MJ-MTF-Stoch line display
(propably more for despichtt but also good exercise for pmullin86 to understand how it works (and to see if it is correct)

Check also the two different Color schemes if both are working correct.

4.
Check also the D% line with different settings



===MOVING AVERAGE:

1.
compare The MJ-MTF MA line to an original MA on a higher TF
(e.g. MJ-MTF-MA M30 on a 5Minutes Chart - with an original Metatrade MA on a 30M Chart.

2.
compare it with the existing #MTF MA
Attached:#MTF Moving Average.mq4)

3.
Check also out the Color MA - if the colors are correct also in live situation


Basically:
if our base indi is not working correctly all other stuff will be not correct either and you might base your decision on wrong data.
So this test above are much more important than anything below for a start.

It's you money I really don't care!! - just a kind advice to make the test thoroughly.

I know alerts and new stuff might be more exciting - but with excitement alone one does not make money more probably loose it.

and test it really with different TF, settings, very long once short once etc.etc



===General other Stuff to test and report:

1.
In preparation for our final Alerter: watch if PC freezes.

Suggested test: IMPORTANT DEACTIVATE the <alertsOn>


PREPARATION: TEMPLATE (better each one does his own one so we get different setting examples tested)

15 MJ-MTF-MAs
(use different settings colors MATimeFrame periods.
(well that's what we hope to use in the alerter (2sets with 6 MA and 3 extra)

21 MJ-MTF-Stochs
(use different settings colors MATimeFrame periods.
(well that's what we hope to use in the alerter (2sets with 9Stochs and 3 extra)

As we keep it by the minimum for the alerter: don't add anything else.


Now you are ready of kind of simulating our final Alerter (not exactly as that will do things a bit differently)

Ask yourself: what do you want to do with the final alerter.

Monitor more pairs at once. So do that and instead of the alerter: apply your template you did above.

In case the PC does not freeze with already one chart please add more charts up to 20-30 even more for a test.


============ END OF THE FIRST ESSENTIAL TESTS

Please do not use the alertsOn for any of the tests above:
The alerts are really secondary at this moment. ( of course you can play with them too and give feedback)

Happy testing

PS: In the meantime I will start doing some more work on the real alerter.

HOMEWORK2 (just to look through so we can decide where to go)

hi,
I guess this will be a bit more messy:

FIRST OF ALL:
let me say I'm not sure if I can do that in MT4 but I used more complexed similar ideas on my customary automatic system as configuration - worked quite well for my way of doing it. I mentioned it at times in Spud's thread )
(probably there are better ways to do it good programmers have a better ability to keep it clear and simple)

Anyway: in my other customary system I found this kind of configuration for a systems alert quite useful: and I used it (not alone but in combination with other stuff) for other tasks like flexible lot size determination, flexible TP / SL projection etc.etc..


If it will work out in MT4 maybe it is still something we do not really want: because of the burdensome configuration task (well it goes a bit easier if one starts configure it in a text editor from a template file.)

Here are some ideas how we could keep the whole lot of options very flexible - but it is no point to include all of this if it is too complicated and no one ever uses it.



===========================
HOW TO PRODUCE A FINAL ALERT!!

Basically for checking out a possible trade entry we want to look for three things: going LONG or going SHORT: it's as simple(or complicated) as that plus one more thing: WHEN.
(of course there is much more to a trade entry than LONG,SHORT,WHEN like: How much, SL/ TP etc,etc but this is not the main purpose of our Alerter.)

__________________________
NOT all actions we might want to include might produce a clear LONG/SHORT answer..

e.g.
1.
Spud sometimes required for the 100,3,3 only to be in either extremes.
Which is true for LONG and SHORT at the same time.

2.
Or despichtt asked for something like
Long_Minimum =30;
Long_Maximum =70;
Short_Minimum =30;
Short_Maximum =70;

if the Stoch is at 50 SHORT AND LONG is true at the same time.

But we still want to make it an essential requirement.

So we need to define also which actions are responsible for giving the BASE DIRECTION.

===================
1.Assessment system
To achieve a flexible way: we will use a point Percentage based assessment system for all actions.
To keep you thinking about what you do: all points together must add up to 100.0 (100%)

2. Type system
Additionally we will use a type system:
ACTION_DISABLED
ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION (NOTE because of what I pointed out above NOT all action are able to be set as BASE_DIRECTION Type)
ACTION_ESSENTIAL
ACTION_CONFIRMATION

3. Final Alert
To produce a final alert we do something like this:

FIRST CHECK:
ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION: ALL: Actions with ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION MUST result into the same direction: otherwise as we have no suggested BASE Direction we do not need to go further. (NO ALERT at that time)
This can produce only 3 answers: NO_BASE_DIRECTION, LONG_BASE_DIRECTION, SHORT_BASE_DIRECTION

SECOND CHECK:
ACTION_ESSENTIAL: ALL: MUST SUPPORT the base direction. because they are essential if one failes to support the BASE_DIRECTION we do not need to go further. (NO ALERT at that time)
This can produce only 2 answers: SUPPORTS_BASE_DIRECTION: YES/NO

if both checks above have succeeded: we are nearly ready for an alert (depending on our ALERT_FINAL_POINT_REQUIREMENT setting)

THIRD CHECK:
ACTION_CONFIRMATION: Does not matter how many do or do not support the BASE_DIRECTION
This can produce only 4 answers: SUPPORTS_LONG: YES/NO, SUPPORTS_SHORT: YES/NO (NOTE as I mentioned above we might get twice: YES (SUPPORTS_LONG and SUPPORTS_SHORT)


===================
TO send finally an Alert: CALCULATED_FINAL_POINTS must be the same or greater than our settings for: ALERT_FINAL_POINT_REQUIREMENT


The CALCULATED_FINAL_POINTS will be produced something like that:


ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION: FOR US (ADD ALL POINTS) (can only support our direction as they define it)

ACTION_ESSENTIAL: FOR US (ADD ALL POINTS) as they are essential and must support our direction

ACTION_CONFIRMATION: more tricky
e.g. BASE_DIRECTION = LONG

1. FOR US (ADD POINTS)
we could have a ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (YES) and SHORT (NO).
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is supported and strengthen our case we add the points)

2. FOR US (ADD POINTS)
we could have a ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (YES) and SHORT (YES).
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is supported and strengthen our case we add the points) (the opposite YES is mostly an overlapping of the two possibilities)

3. AGAINST US (SUBSTRACT POINTS)
or we could have one which clearly points against us: ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (NO) and SHORT (YES)
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is NOT supported and weakens our case we subtract the points)

4. NEUTRAL (SKIP POINTS)
or we could have one which is not for and not against us: ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (NO) and SHORT (NO)
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is NOT supported nor weakened we just skip the points)



To finally count the points we

In the end we come out with some number: max 100, min could be theoretically a negative number also.


There will be a variable to say how many points are required to fire off the Alert.
ALERT_FINAL_POINT_REQUIREMENT: 75 (75%)
if our CALCULATED_FINAL_POINTS are the same or greater we Alert.


BUT THE whole configuration stuff gets messy and i do not know about the additional resources (maybe more frozen PC situations if we apply many pairs - don't know)

===========================

SO: what you guys are thinking about:

1.
if something along the line above works out it will be quite flexible - but probably a bit messy to configure etc.etc.


2.
and maybe we should keep it simpler as we might not really make use of it. (I'm also not si sure how important this point system and Confirmation stuff for a plain indicator is: I did use such things only in connection with automated trade entry.

maybe something along this line: plain and simple: ACTION to include: YES/NO

meaning all Actions must be in agreement (Supporting one of the two possible direction) full stop. (

In fact this covers nearly already the whole lot of ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION, ACTION_ESSENTIAL (as All of them must be always in agreement anyhow)

PERSONALLY I would opt for this simple variation: but I wanted to stimulate your thinking (maybe even some other suggestions as each person has a different way to look at things) and I want to know what you guys think we should do.





===========================

In short why I would go for the simple solution:
1. Maybe someone else will want to use it also one day: as more complicated the setup is, as less likely they will make use of it's otherwise helpful functionalities.
2. This is only an indicator and I'm not so sure if the extra work coding and configuration wise is really necessary if we would imagine things further like Lot size projection / TP / SL projections or EA auto-trading the point system of the projected strength of a setup might be interesting. (but we have only a simple Indi)
3. even though this has some real flexibilities by including confirmation options: in practical usage for our alerter we want to focus on the main required items - and than check out manually the situation - confirmation items.
* And the main items we would have to set anyway to be BASE_DIRECTION or ESSENTIAL: meaning always required.
4. To be honest the point system for the BASE_DIRECTION and ESSENTIAL are not too much important in our case (as we always require them anyway - in my other system I did something else but don't know right now)


HAPPY thinking!! I'm off to the gym as we will probably first decide where we want to go: more flexible but a bit unnecessary and messy OR simple plain (but of course slightly less flexible)

Yes, my friend..

Not live yet: can't wait till monday!

Here you go:
Middle Stochastic Frame:
The Classical Rope(these Sonic settings are too nervous for me)
Settings: Fast Lines are Blue; Slow Lines are Orange; White line = (100,1,3); Green line = (14,1,3);
I added some Higher TF's to this frame:
15minStochastics = Red Line; H1 = Aqua dotted Line; H1 = White dotted Line;

Bottom Stochastic Frame:
Sexyman Settings Stochastics:
Blue line20,10,20);
Red line50,10,20);
Yellow line100,10,30);
MACD: (40,90,). These settings refer to Higher TF.

The MACD is theory from some other dude(forgot the name). Very intresting theory about pulling the trigger for some trade based on RSI as well!

Its great to combine both theory for trading! Our MTF theory is better for identifying fresh trends and the sexyman thing is strong for continuation patterns(you dont get spooked out so fast as for MTF setups because the slower lines behave more stable; you can than take a good look at the rope for messuring intensity). Perhaps I'm still adding your OsMA; not sure yet..

Hi MJ, I downloaded both Test-Indicators.
Just to be sure you send the rigth ones: You have 1 line to test all scenario's you would normaly do with the indicators we used to work with.
Make MT setups, test Colorbars etc..

21 MJ-MTF-Stochs
(use different settings colors MATimeFrame periods.
(well that's what we hope to use in the alerter (2sets with 9Stochs and 3 extra)
This is not the scenario to test for now? Or do you mean I have to test some 21 individual lines based on the Test-Inicator you attached?

1.Assessment system
To achieve a flexible way: we will use a point Percentage based assessment system for all actions.
To keep you thinking about what you do: all points together must add up to 100.0 (100%)

I would say: Lets just go for the 100% rule and not making it too difficult all together. To get the system work and produce nice 100% clear signals based upon some settings will probably be hard enough to achieve!

2. Type system
Additionally we will use a type system:
ACTION_DISABLED
ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION (NOTE because of what I pointed out above NOT all action are able to be set as BASE_DIRECTION Type)
ACTION_ESSENTIAL
ACTION_CONFIRMATION

3. Final Alert
To produce a final alert we do something like this:

FIRST CHECK:
ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION: ALL: Actions with ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION MUST result into the same direction: otherwise as we have no suggested BASE Direction we do not need to go further. (NO ALERT at that time)
This can produce only 3 answers: NO_BASE_DIRECTION, LONG_BASE_DIRECTION, SHORT_BASE_DIRECTION

SECOND CHECK:
ACTION_ESSENTIAL: ALL: MUST SUPPORT the base direction. because they are essential if one failes to support the BASE_DIRECTION we do not need to go further. (NO ALERT at that time)
This can produce only 2 answers: SUPPORTS_BASE_DIRECTION: YES/NO

if both checks above have succeeded: we are nearly ready for an alert (depending on our ALERT_FINAL_POINT_REQUIREMENT setting)

THIRD CHECK:
ACTION_CONFIRMATION: Does not matter how many do or do not support the BASE_DIRECTION
This can produce only 4 answers: SUPPORTS_LONG: YES/NO, SUPPORTS_SHORT: YES/NO (NOTE as I mentioned above we might get twice: YES (SUPPORTS_LONG and SUPPORTS_SHORT)


===================
TO send finally an Alert: CALCULATED_FINAL_POINTS must be the same or greater than our settings for: ALERT_FINAL_POINT_REQUIREMENT



The CALCULATED_FINAL_POINTS will be produced something like that:


ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION: FOR US (ADD ALL POINTS) (can only support our direction as they define it)

ACTION_ESSENTIAL: FOR US (ADD ALL POINTS) as they are essential and must support our direction

ACTION_CONFIRMATION: more tricky
e.g. BASE_DIRECTION = LONG

1. FOR US (ADD POINTS)
we could have a ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (YES) and SHORT (NO).
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is supported and strengthen our case we add the points)

2. FOR US (ADD POINTS)
we could have a ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (YES) and SHORT (YES).
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is supported and strengthen our case we add the points) (the opposite YES is mostly an overlapping of the two possibilities)

3. AGAINST US (SUBSTRACT POINTS)
or we could have one which clearly points against us: ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (NO) and SHORT (YES)
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is NOT supported and weakens our case we subtract the points)

4. NEUTRAL (SKIP POINTS)
or we could have one which is not for and not against us: ACTION_CONFIRMATION which supports LONG (NO) and SHORT (NO)
(In this case our BASE_DIRECTION is NOT supported nor weakened we just skip the points)



To finally count the points we

In the end we come out with some number: max 100, min could be theoretically a negative number also.


There will be a variable to say how many points are required to fire off the Alert.
ALERT_FINAL_POINT_REQUIREMENT: 75 (75%)
if our CALCULATED_FINAL_POINTS are the same or greater we Alert.

The idea's are very good I admid! If its not too hard to implicate.. But than again: I think it requires a lot of extra coding that migth produce more frustration than the results will finaly bring. Not sure its worth all the extra effort..

BUT THE whole configuration stuff gets messy and i do not know about the additional resources (maybe more frozen PC situations if we apply many pairs - don't know)
I agree!

===========================

SO: what you guys are thinking about:

1.
if something along the line above works out it will be quite flexible - but probably a bit messy to configure etc.etc.
If you can add all flexabilities on the comparissons for many lines from Stochastics that would be more enough to me!


2.
and maybe we should keep it simpler as we might not really make use of it. (I'm also not si sure how important this point system and Confirmation stuff for a plain indicator is: I did use such things only in connection with automated trade entry.

maybe something along this line: plain and simple: ACTION to include: YES/NO

meaning all Actions must be in agreement (Supporting one of the two possible direction) full stop. (

In fact this covers nearly already the whole lot of ACTION_BASE_DIRECTION, ACTION_ESSENTIAL (as All of them must be always in agreement anyhow)

PERSONALLY I would opt for this simple variation: but I wanted to stimulate your thinking (maybe even some other suggestions as each person has a different way to look at things) and I want to know what you guys think we should do.

I agree to keep it simple; its already complicated enough!

HAPPY thinking!! I'm off to the gym as we will probably first decide where we want to go: more flexible but a bit unnecessary and messy OR simple plain (but of course slightly less flexible)

Flexibility in settings for individual lines from stochastics and comparing many individual lines to make some scenario is flexible enough for me!

BLUE Response MJ

Hi MJ, I downloaded both Test-Indicators.
Just to be sure you send the rigth ones: You have 1 line to test all scenario's you would normaly do with the indicators we used to work with.
Make MT setups, test Colorbars etc..

YES


1.
both of the indis are single indicator: 1 stoch / the other 1 MA

2.
The most important task is what I put that in your both responsibility

If you plot the MJ Stoch / MA: it must behave in all circumstances correct:
I mean past data (which is quite is to look through and also live data.)

* If you plot them with Timeframe setting 0 they must behave exactely like the Metatrade original Stochastic / Movingaverage indicator - so you can compare them quite easily.

* if you set them to Higher TF than the chart than things are harder to test.
I would suggest you compare it with the existing MTF Stochastic v2 you guys used till now.
BUT also additionally check it against Metatrade original Stochastic /MA on a other chart using the same TF as you applied to the MJ Version.

Especially you (but it's also good for pmullin86) should also check if by using the color bars it is correctly assigned. (Best_ blot the same indi once with line and once with bars.)

For the Color MA - just watch with the live data if it correctly assigns the right colors.



This manual tests are really important: because everything will eventually be based on them.

So, Bottom line is:
* I do not care to take the time to watch all this different scenarios to check if it really works correctly. (if I look at it in a fast way it looks ok)

* but it is your responsibility to control it really.

If than you both give a feedback that it is fine: well I trust you that it is really fine and I will produce a final version.

And also use this for our alerter.
This all sounds more than it's really is: basically just do a good manual check by comparing most settings: single line windows: but maybe also rope and so on.








21 MJ-MTF-Stochs
(use different settings colors MATimeFrame periods.
(well that's what we hope to use in the alerter (2sets with 9Stochs and 3 extra)
This is not the scenario to test for now? Or do you mean I have to test some 21 individual lines based on the Test-Inicator you attached?


Yep, this is a kind of different test.
Not so much if the indi draws correct lines but more: if we use in the alerter all possible stochs: 21 PLUS all possible MAs 15 together: how does this work for freezing the PC.

so 21 MJ stochs plus 15 MJ MAs together is more or less like 1 Alerter.

But our final point of the alerter does not stop there: we want to use it on many different pairs (Look at the attached pic I posted earlier in the thread. that is how you will add in the end the alerter '(not sure any more if I make the dashboard like scanner)

So to test the basic freeze point: you will have to create a template with 21 MJ stoch and 15 MJ MAs and than apply this template to let's say 20-30 different pairs/futures whatever and see what's happening when live data come in in the fast London session or at news time.

e.g. I have some other private indis which for instance scans for about 30 pairs all 9 possible time frames for trend, ATR etc.etc.

This did quite easily freeze the PC so I add to implement a simple small pause ( like 5 sec or 10 sec which is for this purpose no problem at all)

Also for instance if you trade on the 15 M chart a update pause of 20 sec is also no real problem: but on a 1 min its too 1/3

One reason is also: I have not a very good programming style - never learned it professionally.

Nevertheless most what I did in the past 5 years for me worked out in the end.


SO basically we need a report: MJ MA/STOCH works ok/not ok

And after applying 21stochs15Ma template to 5 -15 -30 charts at the same time: it seems to freeze the PC, seems to be ok even in fast moving times.

Depending on what 'pmullin86' says about the flexibility vs. simple: I guess we will opt for such version.

Keeping in mind the alerter should only alert for major stuff and the smaller details should be manually checked.

I will work on some thoughts for our task and post the most common which come to my mind.

Ok, I understand now!

Lets see what happenes on all currency futures together and for each future also at least 3TF's! I migth ad some commodity futures as well..

Looking backwards seems to produce correct results but didnt emloy all 36 lines yet..

I attach an empty indi which shows what I had in mind for input.

Attach it and go to the input panel -- you will see how I thought what variable we should be able to set.

Note: There are place holders for future stuff I might wan to add one day.

ALSO: No ACTION variable is yet defined

It's not final just a fast copy of of the other inputs: the SETS, the extra stochs /MAs

How they get enabled etc.etc.

all together it should add up to 15MA and 21 stochs

So I have a question MJ....I have been playing around with the indicator and all the stoch lines seem to line up with the original and standard stochastic levels as you will see in the pic posted below...so from what I am seeing so far this so far will alert of the d line cross if enabled and the overbought oversold cross over...is that correct...please excuse my ignorance if I am doing something wrong but I tried adding in the same window the 15 minute settings with the 5 minute settings and whenever I would do that than the 15 min alerts seem to override the 5 minute alerts and vert bars from the 5 minute settings...is this not intended to overlay like the mtf stoch v2...or please advise...but now I just noticed when I moved to the 15 minute chart and back to the 5 minute chart...all the lines and alerts seem to be present...the 5 minute and the 15 minute...and also let me ask you this...would it be possible for the final alerter to maybe have the option to set multiple level alerts like what I mean is for example...the 5 15 and 30 I just want to know when they cross the 80 and 20 lets say but than the 1 hour and 4 hour lets say I wanted to know when they cross above and or below 20 above and or below 50 and above and or below the 80 level...maybe not all those options but would something like that be possible...and the problem with the alerts disappearing when adding a higher time frame is corrected once i go to a higher time frame and back down to the 5 minute...it seems the chart has to refresh or something of that nature for everything to be present all at once...and of course this can be edited further by user to change vertline colors to corresponding alert to the corresponding time frame if that makes sense to you that way it doesnt just all appear the same...it is jusy good for the visual user defined of course...


P.S. Anyone new to this please note unless otherwise stated these charts and vertical lines are not denoting actual entry points or anything as we are just experimenting with a new alerter and that is all as we go through the various stages of it...so please don't be confused...

Thanks

Paul

What 21 stochs and 15 MA's are you guys referring to...I'm kind of lost with that...and why so many options are is that due to the different sets that you were referring to MJ and also MJ with candle closes true this works like the stochastic no last bar right....would it be possible to see the different color open end of stochastic like mtf stoch v2...

I'll have a look at it but running out of time(my wife is very angry with me sitting in office all day again).

Fortunately she has to go at work again tomorrow, working many hours a day as well..

Hey MJ I missed responding to something earlier that you asked and my response now is that I opt to keep things simple as this is just to give an overall alert of major things happening and major things we look for in a trade so than we can assess the minor things and decide what to do as far as entry or passing or waiting for a more ideal set up or whatever the case may be...so I opt for simplicity...

MJ Blue response:

So I have a question MJ....I have been playing around with the indicator and all the stoch lines seem to line up with the original and standard stochastic levels as you will see in the pic posted below...so from what I am seeing so far this so far will alert of the d line cross if enabled and the overbought oversold cross over...is that correct...please excuse my ignorance if I am doing something wrong but I tried adding in the same window the 15 minute settings with the 5 minute settings and whenever I would do that than the 15 min alerts seem to override the 5 minute alerts and vert bars from the 5 minute settings...

I did not try alerts with multiple stochs on one chart.

But probably it is not wrong but if you read in the pdf I attached a while back the first point: UniquePrefix
In case one applies the indicator more than once to the same chart (with different settings) it is good too have a real unique prefix: (e.g. add to the beginning numbers 1,2,3, or something like that...)



is this not intended to overlay like the mtf stoch v2...or please advise...but now I just noticed when I moved to the 15 minute chart and back to the 5 minute chart...all the lines and alerts seem to be present...the 5 minute and the 15 minute...

That is properly also related to the issue above: when you first add a indi it deletes all objects VLines in this case:

So if you have one already and add a other with the same UniquePrefix - it deletes the old one.But if both are already applied I guess (not sure though) it just goes through the routine.

Anyway: for multiple kind of alerts try added something to the UniquePrefix.

It's actually cool that you test that: as we probably go for a simpler version and than this might come in handy.

and also let me ask you this...would it be possible for the final alerter to maybe have the option to set multiple level alerts like what I mean is for example...the 5 15 and 30 I just want to know when they cross the 80 and 20 lets say but than the 1 hour and 4 hour lets say I wanted to know when they cross above and or below 20 above and or below 50 and above and or below the 80 level...maybe not all those options but would something like that be possible..

Most is possible:
I was thinking about this myself the other day. but the problem is we have to settle for something.

If I understand you correctly you do not want only a single final alert (if all defined criteria are met) but want a kind of

OR alert.

e.g. what I mean: if that happen (1,2,3 criteria ok - send alerts) OR ( if that other criteria is ok send an alert)

the question is: where do we stop: how many such option do we allow.

But this again comes back to what I wrote about flexibility and simplicity in configuration etc.

Again: if I wanted something in the past in my other system: somehow I finally figured it out after many hours/days even longer.
So, I'm quite sure we could do it.

But I'm writing together a small paper on Actions to be performed and I say there I quote:

MTF-SETS are always treated as an unity.
One can NOT perform a task on an individual stochastic (of course if you disable all other 8 TF than the SET consist of only 1 stochastic)

So, to finally answer my present thought is: NO
(but thanks for the good question -as you see I thought myself along this lines)

For two reasons: (going with the simple version)
1. I guess what you ask would defeat the idea of Sets.
2. The alerter will only produce one final Alert if all selected criteria are true.

We still can solve your task

Option1:

1.
apply the alerter multiple times (maybe make a version without the indicator window to keep the space on the chart
2.
Maybe increase the Extra stochs from 3 to 5 to be more flexible - because Sets are kind of different

But you would still need to apply the indi twice for different task as this.


The main idea is that the indi scans for a number of criteria to produce one final alert - so you can go to the chart and look at it.
But we include quite a lot of option for such final alert.

(this is a bit different than the demo I used by the MTF-MJSToch where it does two different tasks (very simple criteria though) at the same time.

Comes mainly back to the flexible vs. simple configuration stuff.



.and the problem with the alerts disappearing when adding a higher time frame is corrected once i go to a higher time frame and back down to the 5 minute...

It's not a problem but on purpose: the issue is that in fact not all data are available for a real correct representation.
I know other people try to work around: the orig #MTF stoch v2.00 did display them. I could do the same like the #MTF stoch v2. but I prefer to keep it that way.

The user should be aware that the data can not correctly represented on higher TimeFrames (at least to my knowledge)

it seems the chart has to refresh or something of that nature for everything to be present all at once...and of course this can be edited further by user to change vertline colors to corresponding alert to the corresponding time frame if that makes sense to you that way it doesnt just all appear the same...

hi pmullin86 - I do not know what we could/should do - about the colors: Basically we have tow possible situation we are interested in: LONG or SHORT possible setup.

That's why I only think we need in the end 2 colours. (especially considering what I said above that the alerter only produces 1 final possible alert meeting all input criteria)

But if we apply the Alerter for different alerts types multiple: we can set each alert type UP/Down separate colours - so I guess that will work out quite nicely.




THANKS a lot for this good questions: hopefully some of the answers like the disappearing VLines will help you and maybe others.

Looks exectly how I expected it to look!

About ACTION:

You think its possible to selet some Predifened Stochastics line(I mean min/max values entered above) from dropdown list(Like selecting TRUE/Wrong on some option).
Next Step(after selecting 2 lines): select operator like '>' or '<'?
Next Step: many sections of previous procedure for 1SET?

Vey curious how you would like to implement the ACTION(roughly on scratch)!

Looks exectly how I expected it to look!

About ACTION:

You think its possible to selet some Predifened Stochastics line(I mean min/max values entered above) from dropdown list(Like selecting TRUE/Wrong on some option).

I know in MT5 one could do it - but I guess not in MT4 otherwise most of the indis would not let you have to put numbers in for different options like MAMethod selection. (But I'm not sure - just don't think - there are many smart people out there like the Colour Stoch guy but you still had to but the numbers in yourself.)

Anyway for a start I do not want t search for such as it is not essential (but convenient and a good point of you) who knows maybe later one can add this if possible.

Next Step(after selecting 2 lines): select operator like '>' or '<'?
Next Step: many sections of previous procedure?

Very Good point: in one of my customary systems I did more or less such thing
But this worked all differently.

I had one long drop-down list on each side: and in the middle a list with operators
And you could but together a crazy long final criteria.

Anyway: my suggestion was: SETS are always treated as Union and one will do different task on them.

e.g. SET in Order: all included TF must be in order the smaller TF leading the longer.


For the 3 extra Stochs I was thinking of simple implementing each option separately to choose.

e.g. Stoch1_OrderStoch2 (or whatever.
Stoch1_OrderStoch3
Stoch2_OrderStoch3


Something along the line so one just has to activate it or deactivate it.

QUESTION WriteToFile

did anyone of you look at this (also look at the File folder maybe it'*s already full

or do the VLines mostly eliminate the need for WriteToFile.