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.

Aston01

What Am I Missing with My Slope Calculation Code ?

Recommended Posts

I seem to be having a little bit of an issue with my slope calculation and was hoping someone could double check that I had written it properly.

 

The issue is basically that even with the slope degree input adjusted to extremes, some of these flat spots still trigger differently. If working properly the small transition in the middle should have stayed magenta as opposed to going green for 2-3 bars and back to magenta. Am I missing something in my code ?

 

MASlope.jpg

 

 

Here is a snippet of the EasyLanguage code in question.

 

Inputs: 
SlopeAv(5); 

Vars; 
Slope(0); 

Avg = average( Close, length) ; 
Slope =(TLSlopeEasy(Avg,1,SlopeAv)); 

if colorMode = 1  
then setplotcolor[1](1, iff( Avg <Avg [1] and (Slope < .01 ), magenta, green ) ); 
plot1 (Avg , "Avg ");

 

 

Below is a snippet from the diagnostics file (area highlighted in blue is where the color shift occurs). Am I missing something ...seems like just the type of scenario I was trying to smooth. The answer could be staring me in the face and I might not be seeing it.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1111214 1419Avg 3.48Avg[1] 3.51|slope -0.04|condition FALSE

1111214 1419Avg 3.45Avg[1] 3.48|slope -0.03|condition FALSE

1111214 1420Avg 3.42Avg[1] 3.45|slope -0.03|condition FALSE

1111214 1420Avg 3.40Avg[1] 3.42|slope -0.03|condition FALSE

1111214 1420Avg 3.38Avg[1] 3.40|slope -0.03|condition FALSE

1111214 1420Avg 3.37Avg[1] 3.38|slope -0.02|condition FALSE

1111214 1420Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.37|slope -0.02|condition FALSE

1111214 1420Avg 3.35Avg[1] 3.36|slope -0.02|condition FALSE

1111214 1421Avg 3.34Avg[1] 3.35|slope -0.01|condition FALSE

1111214 1421Avg 3.34Avg[1] 3.34|slope -0.01|condition FALSE

1111214 1423Avg 3.35Avg[1] 3.34|slope -0.01|condition FALSE

1111214 1424Avg 3.35Avg[1] 3.35|slope -0.00|condition FALSE

1111214 1426Avg 3.35Avg[1] 3.35|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1429Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.35|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1429Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.36|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1429Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.36|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1430Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.36|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1430Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.36|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1430Avg 3.36Avg[1] 3.36|slope 0.00| condition FALSE

1111214 1431Avg 3.35Avg[1] 3.36|slope -0.00|condition FALSE

 

Any help would be much appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The code you posted is not the code that produced the chart you posted. When asking for help it is best if your chart includes the symbol name in the picture. The symbol should be set to exchange time. This enables calibrating a test case to the aproximately 14:30 time (on this unknown symbol) using some code other than the code you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the middle should have stayed magenta as opposed to going green for 2-3 bars and back to magenta. Am I missing something in my code ?

 

if colorMode = 1

then setplotcolor[1](1, iff( Avg <Avg [1] and (Slope < .01 ), magenta, green ) );

plot1 (Avg , "Avg ");

 

The color is controlled by 'Avg' being up or down since the last bar. Avg <Avg [1]. If you wanted it delayed, wouldn't you need to check multiple bars?

 

To change color down it would need to pass this test:

 

Avg <Avg [1] and Avg[1] < Avg [2] and Avg[2] < Avg [3]

 

otherwise stay the same color, or display a neutral color.

 

var: ChangeDown(False), ChangeUp(False);

 

ChangeDown = Avg <Avg [1] and Avg[1] < Avg [2] and Avg[2] < Avg [3];

ChangeUp = Avg >Avg [1] and Avg[1] > Avg [2] and Avg[2] > Avg [3];

 

if ChangeDown then

setplotcolor[1](1, magenta )

else if ChangeUp then

setplotcolor[1](1, Green );

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formula for slope is slope=(endprice-startprice)/length; A threshold can be optimized to filter out undesirable slope levels.

input: threshold(.1);
var: avg(0), slope(0);

avg=average(c,10); 
slope=(avg-avg[10])/10;

if slope > threshold then setplotcolor(1,green) 
else if slope < -threshold then setplotcolor(1,red);

plot1(avg,"avg");

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for confirming, that is the classical definition. Many people use the regression line slope also.

 

another effective (and more robust) way to determine direction (actually a form of "slope") can be the SDX - signed direction index

 

SDX

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
another effective (and more robust) way to determine direction (actually a form of "slope") can be the SDX - signed direction index

 

SDX

 

Tom

 

Tom, I'm trying to translate sdx. Please post source code. From the formula, I understand S=Speed but I don't understand the line below.

 

S(i) = P(i) - P(i-1) i= 1, ... , k-1

 

If i represents an index from 1 to 10 what does k represent? ... a 1 point increment in grid? Can you help me visualize k in the code below?

 

for i=1 to 10 begin
   s(i)=p(i)-p(i-1);
end;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi onesmith

 

thanks for asking.

 

Since you are interested in a recent value of the "direction", you limit your computations to a recent number of price variations ("moves" from a gridline to another). The (k-1) would represent how many latest distinct price changes you are considering to assess the recent "direction".

 

When you use equispaced gridlines (and do not use weighting), you can just simplify as follows (which is immediately intuitive to visualize):

             Number of "UpMoves" - Number of "DownMoves"
sdx =     --------------------------------------------------------------------   *  100
                              Number of all "Moves"  

 

intending here "UpMoves", "DownMoves", "Moves" as the distinct price "moves" from a gridline to the adjacent one.

 

[ The distance between gridlines depends on your "timeframe" (similar to when you measure time, you may be interested in microseconds variations, or you may just be intested in minutes, depending on what you are doing).

 

(I often use a distance between gridlines equal to 0.1% of the price.) ]

 

Let me know if something unclear here.

 

 

Tom

 

 

Tom, I'm trying to translate sdx.

[...]

If i represents an index from 1 to 10 what does k represent? ... a 1 point increment in grid? Can you help me visualize k in the code below?

 

for i=1 to 10 begin
   s(i)=p(i)-p(i-1);
end;

Edited by tommaso

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.