Indicatori Metatrader 4 : Zup
Posted 20 July 2006 - 05:39 PM
After this, to the left in the second upper line will appear the information from the parameters of bars (spark plugs) from five elder taymfreymov, divided by vertical lines.
Are derived name of taymfreyma, for example, MN.
< - it shows that the spark plug is bear
> - it shows that the spark plug is bull
= - it shows that the spark plug - doge. I.e., the current price is equal to the price of discovery for this spark plug.
The number, which shows the size of spark plug in the points, is derived after this sign.
And further the number, which shows at what level from the minimum of spark plug is located the current price.
Example in the figure.
Posted 20 July 2006 - 05:43 PM
This indicator (i- VTS) uses the built-in metatreyder indicator Average True Range.
For the work with i- VTS the parameters are used:
chHL_.PeakDet_.or_.vts - true - on silence solves the conclusion of the lines of confirmation (price channel) and the levels of the previous maximums ZigZag. false - is derived indicator i- VTS.
NumberOfBars - quantity of bars of miscounting (0- all) for i- VTS.
NumberOfVTS - this, 4 so I understand, the parameter of smoothing for i- VTS.
NumberOfVTS1 - parameter of smoothing for the second copy i- VTS.
To change color and style of these lines is possible with the call of the window of the parameters on the supplementary sheet OF COLOR.
An example of use i- VTS gave Fantik. Here are the references:
1) http://onix-trade.ne...ndex.php?.s=&.s... indpost&.p='2"y"
2) http://onix-trade.ne...ndex.php?.s=&.s... indpost&.p='2"22
3) http://onix-trade.ne...ndex.php?.s=&.s... indpost&.p='2"28
On the picture an example of work i- VTS.
Posted 20 July 2006 - 05:45 PM
ExtFiboFanDinamic - solves the output of the dynamic fibo- brooms
ExtFiboFanStatic - solves the output of the static fibo- brooms
ExtFiboFanStaticNum - number of ray ZigZag- A, on which will be derived static fibo- brooms. y<.EkhtFiboStaticNum<=9
ExtFiboFanHidden - solves the conclusion of marking rays fibo of the brooms
ExtFiboFanD - is assigned the color of the dynamic fibo- brooms
ExtFiboFanS - is assigned the color of the static fibo- brooms
For the first time the concept Of dinimicheskikh and static was introduced for the designation Of fib in ZUP.
Further these names was adopted in indicator ZUP and for many other tools.
Static - means that this tool adapts for the historical evidences. I.e., for those data, which no longer will change.
Dynamic - oenachayet, that the tool adapts on the first, that is changed, ray ZigZag. And, correspondingly, tool just as the first ray ZigZag changes in the real time.
Examples of output fibo of brooms to figures.
Posted 18 September 2006 - 05:11 PM
INDICATORS AD INFINITUM:
I frequently receive messages asking for my opinion about the relative value of this new indicator vs that new indicator. I am very flattered by the assumption that I can immediately rank all the known indicators on a scale of one to ten and then provide meaningful insight on their relative value. Those that ask for this information are sometimes disappointed when I am unable to respond appropriately by perhaps replying that I am certain indicator A is twice as good as indicator B. Unfortunately the truth is I do not spend much of my time researching new indicators nor do I believe that indicators can be compared in this fashion.
Regarding new indicators in general, in my opinion the world of technical analysis has too many indicators already and it doesn't need any more indicators without purpose. Everyone wants to add more indicators and more confusion. Why? I think that every new indicator should be required to come with an explanation of why it was created. What specific problem does it solve? Any new indicator that solves a particular problem should then be welcomed with open arms. Any indicator that was designed simply to be different is less than worthless. It does nothing but add to the existing confusion and serves to distract us from indicators that have proven value. Everyone should realize that in this business we keep score based solely on profits. There are no style points or bonuses for originality.
The new indicator questions I receive usually go something like this: "I just read about Joe Guru's new Joe Guru #62 which he calls the Joe Guru Upside Down Inside Out Infinitely Smoothed Fractal Precipitator with Semi Log Analysis and a Twist of Lime. Do you think this a good indicator?" (By the way, have you noticed that Gurus always have to put their names on their indicators. I think its just some Guru thing. Perhaps a grasp for immortality. In any case, let's forget about the Guru's annoying insistence on naming indicator after indicator after themselves and get back to trying to objectively assess the value of the indicator itself.) "Is it a good indicator?" was the simple question.
The answer, however, is not as simple as the question. For example: Do I think moving averages are good indicators? Yes, as trend identifiers and setups, I think they are wonderful. Do I think moving averages are awful? Yes, I have tested enough of them as entry triggers to state that they are indeed awful. I could go on and on, indicator by indicator. Most indicators are valuable when applied to certain limited tasks and also very poor at many other tasks.
We should keep in mind that indicators are not systems and they should not be evaluated in the same manner as a system might be evaluated. Indicators are nothing more than problem solving tools and there are many problems to be solved when designing a good system. Our favorite indicator may solve one of these problems perfectly but may have no value whatsoever when applied to the next problem. It is true that, in theory, you can take any indicator and make a system out of it. But the result, even with the best indicator, is usually a mediocre system. It seems to me that using this procedure assumes that you already know the answers without ever having defined the problems. Just for fun, the next time you are in the local drug store, go to the pharmacist and ask "What is your best prescription?" Tell me what kind of response you get.
Another aspect of ranking and comparing indicators is that indicators are difficult to test objectively unless you isolate their use to a particular function and then test them for their usefulness according to how well they perform that single function. For example you will remember that in our book we tested a lot of indicators as entry triggers and found that most of them were lousy. This doesn't mean they are lousy indicators. It simply means that they are lousy when used as entry triggers. Unfortunately most traders assume that the only function of an indicator is to use it as an entry trigger.
I think that if we begin to think of indicators as problem solving tools and not as systems they will begin to take on a new life and new meaning. There is no "best"or "worst" or "better than". There are trading problems that need to be solved and there are indicators that provide us a choice of solutions. The best indicator is the indicator that, at this moment, provides the best solution to the problem at hand. As we continue to put the pieces of our system together we will be faced with other problems and today's solution may not be the best solution for tomorrow's problem.
The next time you are building a system, don't start by asking: What indicator am I going to use? Instead begin by breaking down the trading process into a series of clearly identifiable problems. Then use your knowledge of various indicators to find the tool that does the best job of solving each problem. I'll bet the indicator you select is not going to be the super duper Guru namesake of the month.[i]
Posted 19 September 2006 - 05:46 AM
Cel mai distractiv mi se pare când pe un forum cineva propune o metodă oarecare, testată pe o perioadă de luni sau chiar ani de zile, şi dovedită ca profitabilă - după care, la prima tranzacţie pierzătoare, apar 100 de "experţi" care aduc "îmbunătăţiri". E vorba, evident, de noi indicatori ataşaţi care ar putea filtra asemenea semnale "false". Până la urmă, în câteva săptămâni, din ideea profitabilă iniţială se alege praful, şi se ajunge la un sistem cu 15 indicatori din care nimeni nu mai pricepe nimic. Sau, poţi băga cei 15 într-unul singur, gen ZUP, cu un efect şi mai spectaculos.
Unii traderi nu pricep faptul că nu trebuie găsită neapărat o "explicaţie" pentru o tranzacţie pierzătoare, sau chiar mai multe... orice sistem are aşa ceva. Dar ei continuă să găsească "explicaţii" de genul "aha... mişcarea a stagnat pentru că preţul s-a izbit de EMA 200 (sau 100, 50, 13, 54 etc.)!... sau pivotul nu ştiu care, sau nivelul fibo x de pe daily (weekly, hourly)... sau nivelul camarilla, sau patternul gartley care indica acest lucru" etc. Dacă te apuci să adaugi toate liniile considerate de unul sau altul ca importante, vei avea câteva sute de linii pe un grafic, acoperind pip cu pip După care, treaba e simplă, orice s-ar întâmpla, poţi spune că s-a petrecut pentru că acolo era importanta linie x.
Urmăresc nişte topicuri pe Moneytec unde vreo 6 experţi în Elliot wave analizează perechile majore, mai ales eurusd. O frumuseţe de grafice pline de numere de la 1 la 5 şi litere de la A la C mai mici sau mai mari. Sunt indivizi care fac asta de ani de zile, chipurile cu succes, şi care mai dau şi lecţii cu 2-5000 de dolari pe lună. Ieftin ca braga. Însă, ce să vezi? Zi de zi cam jumătate din ei spun că undele lor arată că eurusd urmează să crească, în mod evident, merge către 1.35 şi cumpără orice dip, iar cealaltă jumătate, demonstrează cu aceeaşi tărie că eurusd urmează să se prăbuşească masiv, cel puţin la 1.16 (şi ca urmare vând orice rally). Acelaşi lucru îl văd şi pe alte threaduri unde se lucrează cu alte patternuri pe care, aparent spre nemulţumirea lui Maslow, le-am denumit "fluturi". Sigur că dacă un indicator ca acest ZUP trasează nşpe linii, de multe ori preţul va părea că respectă unele dintre ele. Însă şi mai des nu le respectă, sau pare că ţine cont de alte linii, ceea ce reduce substanţial valoarea practică a unui asemenea hăţiş de linii. Însă, aşa cum îi spuneam şi lui într-un mesaj privat, asta nu înseamnă că nu merită încercat, dacă te tentează ideea. Stabileşti nişte reguli clare şi faci un forward test. Dacă eşti profitabil cu aşa ceva, bravo ţie şi meşterului nen sau cum l-o chema. Însă fără un asemenea test, doar a admira nişte grafice colorate cu multe liniuţe şi punctuleţe mi se pare o pierdere de timp.
Posted 20 September 2006 - 12:55 PM
Posted 21 September 2006 - 12:26 AM
Am sa atasez o imagine cu un indicator simplu si eficient bazat pe un algoritm ZUP. Mai simplu de atat nu exista.
cum se numeste indicatorul din imagine?
Posted 21 September 2006 - 10:49 PM
Indicatorul din ultima imagine se numeste "ZigandZag".
l-am gasit, mersi
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users