10.4 A Complete System

[myluu]

Can someone direct me to the page to download the CSS indicator? I tried loading this early last week and was not successful. 10.4 worked nicely for me last week under difficult market conditions. Live account +5.2%.

http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3 ... f=45&t=629

[tibochina]

Thanks. I appreciate your help.

[nanningbob]

I knew the repainting issue, but did not imagine that affected son many bars. I ll check it out with the true settings.

The slope indis work best on higher TF because the repaint issue is lessened. Slower moving less volatile the TF the more accurate it is.

I've never understood why you want to use the repainting version at all. If you only look at the current bar it makes no difference, and I assume that's mostly what you use it for. But for anybody trying to learn your approach, for anybody who wants to be able to look at a historic chart to understand how it played out, the repainting slope indicators are totally misleading.

The repainters look "pretty" in history, but that prettiness is a lie. It confuses people trying to learn by studying the charts. I much prefer the version that looks on the chart the way it looked in realtime, so I can see on the chart what I would have seen in realtime if I was trading it.

Though actually.... I just checked both of them stepping through history with F12 in the System Tester, and according to that, BOTH versions repaint!? ignoreFuture = true doesn't repaint as egregiously as ignoreFuture = false, but even iF = true changes its values, and its zero-crossings, as the chart progresses.

And since the 10.4 RSI indicator is based on NT TMATrue SlopeHisto MTF, which ALSO repaints somewhat, the 10.4 RSI values also change with time. But I think that's probably a less serious problem, especially since 10.4 just acts when the RSI pegs against 0 or 100. That won't change much.

This is the behavior in the System Tester. I assume it acts similarly in realtime but I haven't verified it yet.

In fact even vanilla RSI (on Close) kind of "repaints," at least in System Tester. The RSI value on the last bar (the realtime bar, bar 0) in ST is usually equal to the RSI on the previous bar (bar 1), then it changes value when you move to the next bar. So bar 0 changes when it moves to bar 1, but then the bar 1-N values are steady. But I'll be really surprised if it does that in realtime. I think ST is showing the bar 0 RSI values at the OPEN of the new bar, on the first tick of the new bar, when the RSI value is usually almost identical to the RSI value of the previous tick (which closed the previous bar). If so, then the bar 0 value **in ST** isn't really valid and should be ignored. Which is very relevant for me because I've been running a trade simulator in ST to try to learn 10.4...

Because you bought into the idea that the TMA true is true. It is not true and I consider it a bad indicator. Some guy comes along and says an indi repaints, when it really updates the past info. I will get into this one more time. The TMA true is NOT a true picture of what happens. It is a very false argument. The information you want is what really happened. The TMA true does not and I will say this one more time. THE TMA TRUE DOES NOT give you the real story of what happened in the past. To get what really happened in the past it has to update (NOT REPAINT) the past to fit what happened. What the TMA slope shows you is the JPY in the past several months was by far and away the weakest currency.

Now as we look at past history which one tells us better what happened in the past. The TMA slope which updates and lets you know for over 3 months that the JPY was the weakest currency on the board OR the so called TMA true (which isnt really true) that this only happened for less than 2 months. I give you the evidence and the proof. Notice the monthly chart of usd/jpy as the JPY is in a strong weakened condition for over 3 months just as the regular TMA updated and shows you to be true and the so called TMA true (which is really FALSE info) does not. You have to have the indi update as it moves along to fully understand the true strength of the move as it really was doing in the past. The TMA true does not, can not, and will not do that. I WILL NOT BE USING THE TMA TRUE because it DOES NOT WORK when it comes to the real strength of a move. I hope this settles this issue once and for all. Look at the pictures, which indi is telling you the real truth of what happened in the past and compare it with the USD/JPY monthly chart or any of the monthly JPY crosses The TMA true never tells you the real story of what is happening in the past and for it to do that it MUST update the graph which you falsely accuse it of repainting.

[nanningbob]

This shows up on the present graph if you look at the present, the top currency is the AUD. The TMA true still shows it is strengthening while real TMA shows that the angle of increase is decreasing. The real truth is the normal TMA is telling the truth. The angle of increase, yes it is still increasing, but it is slowing down. This lets you know that the AUD is slowing down its angle of increase which is the correct interpretation. The TMA true fails miserably in this category. That is why I will not use it. It wont update the past and let you know what is really happening. The same is true of the GBP TMA true is still showing increase the normal TMA is showing a slowdown of the increase. I can see it, why cant you??? You will not get these subtle changes in price action from the TMA true (what is falsely named TMA true) you have to have the indi update the past to get an accurate measure of what is really happening. The slowing down of the increase of slope is not seen in the TMA true.

[SteveHopwood]

Not entirely sure what is going on here, but as a multi-year coder of EA's trying to make use of fucking Custom Abortions I can confirm these points:

• If a CA has 'true' in its title the it is lying. It will tell as much truth as a puppy stood next to a pile of poo.
• If a CA has 'Non-lag' in its title, then it lags to buggery. Just like the original lagging version but worse, cos it is trying to pretend that something is possible that isn't.

Those of us here making pips out of what Bob is offering could not give a Flying Fuck whether the indi's he uses are Lagging, Non-Lagging, True, False, Shagging-The-Dog or Fucking-The-Forum.

We just make the pips.

[nanningbob]

Not entirely sure what is going on here, but as a multi-year coder of EA's trying to make use of fucking Custom Abortions I can confirm these points:

• If a CA has 'true' in its title the it is lying. It will tell as much truth as a puppy stood next to a pile of poo.
• If a CA has 'Non-lag' in its title, then it lags to buggery. Just like the original lagging version but worse, cos it is trying to pretend that something is possible that isn't.

Those of us here making pips out of what Bob is offering could not give a Flying Fuck whether the indi's he uses are Lagging, Non-Lagging, True, False, Shagging-The-Dog or Fucking-The-Forum.

We just make the pips.

Hi Steve, welcome to the age old debate of TMA. Like Mr. Spock said, this time in history uses very colorful metaphors.

[Jemook]

Those of us here making pips out of what Bob is offering could not give a Flying Fuck whether the indi's he uses are Lagging, Non-Lagging, True, False, Shagging-The-Dog or Fucking-The-Forum.

Sometimes I want to print out gems such as these and print them on my wall just in case I ever forget just how batshit crazy you really are!

Love your style.

[SteveHopwood]

Well, it only seems fair to entertain whilst being extremely rude to large numbers of people.

[Jemook]

In all fairness though I will always appreciate anyone that drills right down to the epicentre of a strategy and does their due diligence to understand how it works and to understand how the author wants it to work too. Here's looking to you Gary!

[SteveHopwood]

Hi Steve, welcome to the age old debate of TMA. Like Mr. Spock said, this time in history uses very colorful metaphors.

Way back in my distant past, the radio alarm awoke me to ludicrous quotes from this moron. In my semi-awake state, I actually wondered if is child-rearing theories were the product of Star Trek. It was a shock to discover he was actually a respected (back then) child psychologist/self-proclaimed 'expert' in child rearing.

He was probably child-rearing's equivalent to a FCA.

Henceforth, I deem that CA's shall be known as FCA's. This is going to confuse the newbs.