Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

LS_Chad

Measuring/Quantifying Divergence

Recommended Posts

I'm often asked if we have an "indicator" for divergence/convergence, and right now, the answer is no. So I'd like to open a thread to discuss how one would measure the divergence between price and any indicator (such as RSI), or between two indicators. In essences, how would you quantify divergence, on a bar to bar basis, between any two series of data points (whether that series be price data, volume data, or any technical indicator values).

 

It is my understanding, that when looking for divergence, you would identify two consecutive significant highs (or significant lows), and look for price increasing between those two bars, while an indicators value decreased (or visa versa).

 

The first question....do we really need a "divergence" value on every bar...or do we only need it on specific bars where these significant highs or lows occurred?

 

And should that divergence just be "true" (we have divergence) or "false" (we don't) or should it have a magnitude?

 

And can we calculate this value over a specific period, or is that period variable? This is what makes measuring/calculating divergence so difficult. It's easy to identify visually on a chart, but trying to put it into code is a different story.

 

I'll begin the discussion by overly simplifying things:

 

Here's an example that uses this custom indicator:

 

(CL > CL.10) * (RSI < RSI.10) - (CL < CL.10) * (RSI > RSI.10)

 

to measure divergence over a 10 bar period between price and RSI on a 3-min chart. The bottom pane shows the custom indicator giving us a value of 1 when we have divergence of price increasing over the 10 bars while RSI decreased, and a value of -1 when price decreased yet RSI increased:

 

Divergence.png

http://www.charthub.com/images/2009/03/24/Divergence.png

 

Here's another, that puts some amplitude (change in RSI over 10 bar period) into the value of the histogram (bottom pane):

 

Divergence_2.png

http://www.charthub.com/images/2009/03/24/Divergence_2.png

 

And here is the syntax for that custom indicastor:

 

((RSI.10 - RSI) * (CL > CL.10) * (RSI < RSI.10)) - ((RSI - RSI.10) * (CL < CL.10) * (RSI > RSI.10))

 

Again, I know this overly simplifies the concept, but something we can build on. I'm sure there are a few who have tackled this issue already that could weigh with some good insight.

 

Chad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.charthub.com/images/2009/03/25/Diverg_MACD_Ergod

1. Three lines on price pane show price trending down. Some people may dispute the exact placement of those lines, but the fact remains: price declines.

2. The corresponding MACD lows are trending up. May suggest price reversal but not quite. The first declining price trend line is accompanied by a decisive rise in corresponding MACD trend but initially, at least , prices continue to fall. Only the second signal (Dec 8) is followed by price increase.

3. The forth pane shows CI kindly supplied by Chad some time ago -- ergodic signal. The false signal created by MACD -- Price divergence is absent here.

 

The 4 bottom panes are CIs (code provided above by Chad, called "amplified divergence") .

First out of 4 cranks MACD over an arbitrary period of 10 bars.

Second cranks Ergodic over a period of 10 bars.

Third cranks Ergodic over a period of 20 bars.

Forth cranks MACD over a period of 20 bars.

 

 

 

First thing that comes to mind is that the user should be able to adjust the period (number of bars) for analysis. Second: leave the choice of an indicator to the user.

You can slide the dates backward looking at "MACD amplified divergence 20 bars" and spoting former occurrences. The false signal created by "raw" MACD is eliminated.

Third: it allows to quantify the divergence !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This subject was covered in the RTL tutorial (and ongoing project) that can be found at:

 

Investor/RT - Tutorial - RTL 101

 

Specifically, the section on Divergence can be found here:

 

Investor/RT - Tutorial - RTL 101

 

Several new functions have been added to RTL which will provide more tools to attack divergence:

 

SLOPE(exp, n) - change-based slope of exp over past n bars: (exp - exp.n)/n

ACCEL(exp, n) - change-based acceleration of exp over past n bars, or slope of current bar minues slope of last bar

SLOPER(exp, n) - regression-based slope of exp over past n bars.

ACCEL(exp, n) - regression based acceleration over past n bars. Difference between the reg-based slope of current bar and reg-based slope of prev bar.

YINT(exp, n) - current value of a regression line through the past n bars of exp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chad,

 

I was interested in your method of determining divergence, but for Trade Navigator, and came up with the following.

 

Original code by Chad:

 

((RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False).(BarsToUse) - RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False)) * (Close > Close.(BarsToUse)) * (RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False) < RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False).(BarsToUse))) - ((RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False) - RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False).(BarsToUse)) * (Close < Close.(BarsToUse)) * (RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False) > RSI (Close , BarsToUse , False).(BarsToUse)))

 

Indicator independent version:

 

(((UserExprOne).(BarsToUse) - (UserExprOne).0) * ((UserExprTwo).0 > (UserExprTwo).(BarsToUse)) * ((UserExprOne).0 < (UserExprOne).(BarsToUse))) - (((UserExprOne).0 - (UserExprOne).(BarsToUse)) * ((UserExprTwo).0 < (UserExprTwo).(BarsToUse)) * ((UserExprOne).0 > (UserExprOne).(BarsToUse)))

 

Example of implementation with chart:

 

TLabQuantDiverg (Regression Value (Close , 7 , 0) , Regression Value (Momentum (Close , 7) , 7 , 0) , 7)

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=12683&stc=1&d=1249381472

 

Note: the use of Regression is merely to smooth-out some of the wrinkle in the input values.

 

Regards,

QuantDiverge.thumb.PNG.c3aeffa920f13a35fdb545d55cc9705f.PNG

Edited by phase21
Clarification of usage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • How's about other crypto exchanges? Are all they banned in your country or only Binance?
    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.