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.

r4bb1t

Does Divergence Signals Really Work?

Does Divergence Signals really work?  

163 members have voted

  1. 1. Does Divergence Signals really work?

    • Yes.
      119
    • No.
      44


Recommended Posts

when you start learning of technical analysis.

you had to hear 'Divergence Signal' hundred of times that says those are powerful reversal signal.

you know what?

all the oscillators that has Divergence signals are calculated by exponential moving average. such as famous MACD, RSI.

but what if replacing EMA to SMA from the equation?

divergence signals are gone.

this implies that divergence signals are not from the oscillator calculation. exponential moving average generates them.

it is just that the power of movement doesn't increasing or decreasing 'exponentially'

do you believe that a Trend must have exponential movement?

in my opinion divergence signal is most overestimate technique. and it makes critical trading failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't seem to know at all what you are talking about. Divergence is not always computed in only the way you seem to suggest. Divergence behavior of bounded oscillator-type indicators does appear on many different indicators. Is it useful? It can be very powerful. Does it fail? Of course it does. But perfection is not something attainable anyway in any indicator. It is a matter of proportion of its successes. How you decide to classify the occurrence of divergence requires many decisions..how long is the lookback period, are equal indicator extremes gong to be included, how many bars apart are accceptable, what about situations where a third less extreme point follows the two..this usually implies that the first divergence trade will be somewhat underwater, but this next extreme will often work. The less lag, the greatest smoothness and the retention of sharpness at the turn in the indicator assists in the divergence signal being timely and usefull. Classifying divergence in real-time manually by the trader is difficult in the heat of battle. The computer algorithms hae improved over the years to perform this classification. This presents an objective rule-base way to do this but it still requires all the preceeding decisions to be made and coded or entered as inputs by the user. Important tops and bottoms often are accompanied by clear divergence; it is a matter of filtering out the erroneous signals by some means...which is pretty much the problem we face with every trading approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally found that I erased a lot of my trading mistakes when I stopped using divergence to assist with trading decisions. Like with most things that are trading related, the context of when the divergence occurs is key, and I didn't get that when I was exploring using divergence as an entry trigger. I'm sure it works great for the people that have done the research and fit it into their trading plan, but I'm definitely not there with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divergence is nothing more that price rejection faster at certain level,so if you can identify other indications of where to expect price to have this type of action(sop/resist) then you dont even need the indicator to find it.

All you need to do is watch what happen there and price action would tell you if a divergence pattern is likely to ocurr before the indicator shows it.

i wich i was smarter to post some chart but I'm not.

:crap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my analysis I use Divergences. I use a hierarchy system when evaluating a stock. However, divergences are certainly not a buy dont buy issue. They simply help me stack the odds more in my favor.

 

I also wonder which divergences people like and which divergences people dont like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it does. One has just to study specific examples to prove this. I have studied both macd and rsi indicators and i have found out that divergence really exists. In an up trend, higher highs are made, and so with the macd and rsi levels. However, when the trend is about to reverse, on the next high (which would be the last), the macd or rsi will not show higher high. The next macd or rsi high will be lower than the previous. This is what is called divergence. It is now time to reverse trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My :2c: is that divergences can work. Far from the holy grail so you either have to trade the all and have good risk mgmt in place or filter the losing ones out. Some considerations in trading divergences is that they will show in trending moves, how quickly do you want to get in or do you wait for confirmation... among many other things. Adding divergences to your trading plan can be addition but I think you'll need more than just divergences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, exactly. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if you have an understanding of longer term support and resistance, and you wait for those levels to trade, I would say that divergence can help give confidence in getting in. Going long on the first RSI divergence after only wave 1 of a selloff after longer term support has failed is probably not the best of ideas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your consideration: http://thepatternsite.com/DivergenceTest.html

 

First, tests show that divergence between price and the Wilder relative strength index (RSI) beat the performance of the S&P 500 index consistently only in a bull market using bullish divergence. The other combinations of bull/bear markets and bullish/bearish divergence underperform the market index.

 

For the winning combination, bullish divergence in a bull market, I found that it wins between 45% and 48% of the time. In other words, the performance of the index beats stocks showing bullish divergence more often than not.

 

Second, I read that when the indicator makes a shallow dip or rise between the end points in divergence, it means a more powerful move. That turns out to be true but only in a bear market.

 

Third, it's best to ignore divergence when the first peak or valley occurs between 30 and 70. Including that range hurts performance in nearly all categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divergences work like a champ when they are used on counter trend tests (ie counter trend double bottoms) while trying to enter on a resumption of the trend.

 

They are not so effective when trying to pick market bottoms or tops.

 

 

Luv,

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(MACD) divergence really shines during counter trend tests such as a-b-c consolidations. You'll see the divergence between the a and c legs and the corresponding macd peaks/valleys very clearly in most cases.

 

 

Luv,

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for every divergence that works,

I can find you at least a divergence that does not.

the score is probably 50-50 at best

 

Hi Tams,

 

It's pretty much like saying do chart patterns work. Mostly subjective. They work if someone reads them in correct context.

 

:2c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused::confused:

‘mathematically’, seems many divergences are, in large part, created/made possible by the form, extent and duration of the most recent correction before the current thrust which is exhibiting indicator divergence …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:confused::confused:

‘mathematically’, seems many divergences are, in large part, created/made possible by the form, extent and duration of the most recent correction before the current thrust which is exhibiting indicator divergence …

 

Divergences using RSI

 

They can be quantified to a good extent (the analysis can be automated). but the problem is that coding them requires more than just familiarity with ninja/tradestation. I personally know people who have automated their discretionary trading systems and their code runs into thousand of lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I personally know people who have automated their discretionary trading systems and their code runs into the thousands of lines.

 

Do you have any idea what sort of trading these people are doing, ie ultra short term v. position trading?

 

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phantom,

 

I was referring to discretionary short-term trading (holding time 30 mins to 3 days).

 

Since last year I have been working on automating my strategies. I'm a Amibroker user- and believe it or not- it took me almost 6 months to get a 'satisfactory' support/resistance code. I'm talking about basic S/R which any discretionary trader will be able to mark. When we mark these levels we are quick to adjust for gaps, spikes, stagnated prices. I'm talking about stuff which may appear common sense to a discretionary trader; but when coding everything need to be quantified. It's a little over 100 lines.

 

Take the divergences for example for which I gave a link in previous post. There is a method for ranking these based on the conditions which make them occur, and related to how accurate they may be. If you go through that post I factor several things like previous trend and price shocks for ranking them. The ranking method alone will receive quotes around 1000$ from programmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a theory why the MACD will show divergence during corrective moves in a trend.

 

Using the a-b-c correction as an example, I submit that as the market approaches the "c" point of the correction, which is usually a test of some degree of the "a" point in the correction, the market reacts with a rejection of price that usually does not occur during the formation of the "a" point.

 

One can oftentimes see indication of price rejection (dependent upon the time frame one is looking at, of course) in the form of hammer bars while no such indication of price rejection exists around the "a" point.

 

Since these price rejection bars have closing prices located near the extremes of their bars, the moving average of these bars will start to move in the direction of the trend earlier than the moving average of the bars that formed the "a" test point.

 

This, of course, creates the divergence between the test points and the moving averages.

 

Do or Die, in your days as a floor trader were you able to witness this phenomenon of price rejection during the consolidation phase of a trend move?

 

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Weekly Trading Forecasts for Major Pairs (July 23 - 27, 2018)          Here’s the market outlook for the week:   EURUSD Dominant bias: Neutral   Price made a bullish attempt on Monday, but started coming down afterwards. The support line at 1.1600 was tested and price bounced off it, closing above another support line at 1.1700. The market is neutral, and that status will continue as long as price oscillates between the support line at 1.1550 and the resistance line at 1.1800. However, the neutrality in the market will soon end, and ensuing movement could most probably favor bulls. This means a break above the resistance line at 1.1800 is possible before the end of the week.   USDCHF Dominant bias: Neutral This pair also went downwards at the beginning of last week, and then rallied around the middle of the week, only to come downward again at the end of the week. Price closed below the resistance level at 0.9950, threatening to go further downwards. The bias on the market is eventually neutral, and it would remain so until the support level at 0.9850 is breached to the downside. The most probable direction is southwards.   GBPUSD Dominant bias: Bearish GBPUSD is a weak trading instrument. Since April 14, price has been going downwards. Price moved briefly below the accumulation territory at 1.3000, and then rallied by 170 pips, almost reaching the distribution territory at 1.3150. The bias remains essentially bearish (but perpetual bullish effort could threaten the bearish bias). There are additional distribution territories 1.3200, 1.3250 and 1.3300.   USDJPY Dominant bias: Bullish After testing the supply level at 113.00 several times, a bearish correction was started, which made the price close below the supply level at 111.50 on July 20 (a drop of 150 pips). The bias is bullish in the long-term, but going bearish in the short-term. Things will go completely bearish when price moves further downwards by another 200 pips, reaching the demand levels at 111.00, 110.50 and 110.00, and going further downwards.   EURJPY Dominant bias: Bullish   The market had been going upwards since June 28 until recently. The recent bias is bullish but there is a high possibility of price going bearish. Price has made a bearish U-turn, after almost reaching the supply zone at 132.00. It is expected that price will continue to go downwards this week, thereby rendering the recent bullish bias invalid and reaching the demand zones at 130.00, 129.50 and 129.00. Those demand zones may even be exceeded before the end of July.   GBPJPY Dominant bias: Bearish There is a Bearish Confirmation Pattern in the market, as a result of a drop of 300 pips last week. The drop has already generated a bearish signal in the market, brought about by the perceived weakness in GBP, and the strength in JPY. This week (even till the end of July), the outlook on JPY pairs is bearish, and that means GBPJPY also will experience further bearish movement, which would enable it to reach the demand zones at 145.50, 140.00 and 135.50.         This forecast is concluded with the quote below:   “A surprising insight for me in Jack Schwager’s Market Wizards was that most of the top traders he interviewed are 1-trick ponies: they do one thing — and they do it very well. Their success was built upon their ability to discover what others overlooked. I concluded that ‘doing one thing well’ would immediately simplify my trading life and could eventually evolve one thing into an important trading edge.” – VTI   Source: www.tallinex.com      
    • $EFII (EFII) Electronics For Imaging stock flat top breakout watch above 35.53,



      analysis https://stockconsultant.com/?EFII
       
    • Hi All, What trading platform do you prefer for US Equities? Pros and Cons? thanks! 
    • Very interesting question. Personally, I believe market swings in those sectors are influenced by other factors, not only the presidents' background or agenda. Having said that, it may be worth regressing the data for a firm conclusion. 
    • $AAP (AAP) Advance Auto Parts stock flat top breakout above 142.21, target 152.7, +7%,



      analysis https://stockconsultant.com/?AAP
       
×

Important Information

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