[Aston01]

Has anyone come across a good technique for smoothing the color defining transitions without disturbing the entry and exit points of blatant directional changes?

I am sure inevitably someone is going to come on here and say that further smoothing of an MA will lessen false signals but delay entry, and I don't disagree.

BUT due to the standard way of coding a color alternating signal line being an either or approach, minuet changes in the direction are approached as veritable True or False in nature. All of this ultimately allowing for what I personally refer to as micro chop or false signals.




I have had some success in limiting the issue by replacing the standard price input with (High + Low)/2 as opposed to Close, as well as changing the number of look back bars from 1 to 2.

{ Color criteria }
if (Value1 > Value1[2]) then 
	SetPlotColor[colourDeltaBar](1, upColour)
else if (Value1 < Value1[2]) then 
	SetPlotColor[colourDeltaBar](1, downColour);

I have contemplated using a percentage of variance or some form of a slope calculation to allow for a margin of error, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around which would be more effective and adaptive to various circumstances.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

[Tams]

Originally Posted by Aston01 »

Has anyone come across a good technique for smoothing the color defining transitions without disturbing the entry and exit points of blatant directional changes?

I am sure inevitably someone is going to come on here and say that further smoothing of an MA will lessen false signals but delay entry, and I don't disagree.

BUT due to the standard way of coding a color alternating signal line being an either or approach, minuet changes in the direction are approached as veritable True or False in nature. All of this ultimately allowing for what I personally refer to as micro chop or false signals.




I have had some success in limiting the issue by replacing the standard price input with (High + Low)/2 as opposed to Close, as well as changing the number of look back bars from 1 to 2.

{ Color criteria }
if (Value1 > Value1[2]) then 
	SetPlotColor[colourDeltaBar](1, upColour)
else if (Value1 < Value1[2]) then 
	SetPlotColor[colourDeltaBar](1, downColour);

I have contemplated using a percentage of variance or some form of a slope calculation to allow for a margin of error, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around which would be more effective and adaptive to various circumstances.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

there are hundreds of ways to smooth a MA...

eg.

use medianprice instead of close

[zdo]

Aston,

Preface: For real life, though, you said it just right with

I have contemplated using a percentage of variance or some form of a slope calculation to allow for a margin of error, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around which would be more effective and adaptive to various circumstances.

The simplest, non-adaptive start I can give you
[pseudocode]

inputs:
…
nSdevLen(200),
…
nBrktMlt1(.6),   { manually tweak this input and your value1’s length parameter to get goldilock’s settings }
…

// also add a flatColor(neutralcolor) input...		
;

vars:
…
degree(0),
sdev(0),
colorThreshold(0),
 …
;

//////////////////
{Color criteria}
degree = absvalue(arctangent(nlAvg- nlAvg[1]));
sdev = stddev(degree, sdevLen);
colorThreshold = sdev * nBrktMlt1;

{ 
notes: 
> [2] changed to [1] throughout this example - why wait? ;) .  
> nlAvg equivalent to your Value1…
}


if (degree <=  colorThreshold)  then begin
  SetPlotColor(1, flatColor);

end else begin
 if (nlAvg > nlAvg [1]) then     
   SetPlotColor(1, upColor)

 else
  SetPlotColor(1, dnColor;

end;   // if (degree >  colorThreshold)

///


This concept could also be modified to keep the dnColour during your red circle (because angles haven’t changed sufficiently to up )

You could also get more fuzzy using GradientColor reserved word, etc. hth

[JohnTaylorHK]

Originally Posted by Aston01 »

Has anyone come across a good technique for smoothing the color defining transitions without disturbing the entry and exit points of blatant directional changes?

I am sure inevitably someone is going to come on here and say that further smoothing of an MA will lessen false signals but delay entry, and I don't disagree.

BUT due to the standard way of coding a color alternating signal line being an either or approach, minuet changes in the direction are approached as veritable True or False in nature. All of this ultimately allowing for what I personally refer to as micro chop or false signals.




I have had some success in limiting the issue by replacing the standard price input with (High + Low)/2 as opposed to Close, as well as changing the number of look back bars from 1 to 2.

{ Color criteria }
if (Value1 > Value1[2]) then 
	SetPlotColor[colourDeltaBar](1, upColour)
else if (Value1 < Value1[2]) then 
	SetPlotColor[colourDeltaBar](1, downColour);

I have contemplated using a percentage of variance or some form of a slope calculation to allow for a margin of error, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around which would be more effective and adaptive to various circumstances.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Hi Aston,

I have been using a heat-map approach to determining support and resistance for my grid trading application. This technique could be adapted to MAs, Please see my last blog post here and then PM me if you are interested in pursuing.

Best

John

[Aston01]

Tams - I gave median a whirl and it seemed make an improvement in the smoothing without much lag...Thanks for the idea

John - Interesting idea ..I'll have to do some more reading on it

[estate1997]

Use the juric formula to smooth your MA where jthma is the juric function ie;

NewMA=jthma(yourMA,3);

to get it super smooth run it through the formula one more time.

NewMA1=jthma(NewMA,3);