Topic: Something, something, something, technical analysis - page 6. (Read 31170 times)

I had hope nobody would notice  Yes, I do think 'histogram' is more correct. I'll make correction in my original post, but the evidence of my stupidity would still remain in numerous quotes. Facepalm!  

Hehehe. Nice.

One remark though: I like your table, but your original equivalence was: divergence - second derivative - acceleration. You sure about that one? I'm still trying myself to wrap my head around how to best conceptualize 'divergence' (in the TA sense), but I'm not sure if it's as straightforward as it being the second derivative.

In the paragraph above you seem to substitute 'histogram' for 'divergence', which I think is more accurate. 'Divergence' is, imo, at least another step removed from that.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

i agree, as an engineer this makes perfect sense.

TA sometimes is easy, but some charts are very confusing.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02941226

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1006275

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.19.4881

FTFY

Thanks for that! It actually helps.
You should write a dictionary for TA-challenged scientists like me 

I've been playing around with an experimental indicator in here, but I wouldn't really suggest anyone yet to make any decisions based on the output. I know I don't take it too serious yet.

I lost interest in trading the swings a bit in the past weeks... "trading fatigue", is there such a thing? That's why I didn't post in here more often. For the record though, I enjoy all the other posts in here (justanothersheep makes a lot of good points imo, for example). Also, this is one of the few threads where traders/TAers don't have to defend themselves against the accusations coming from the "pure holder" mentality constantly.

I did take smaller profits twice during the swing down since May 31st/June 1st, but went long again afterwards. Both trades were pure momentum based, so nothing that warrants an analysis post.

So perhaps the following is not a really deep or interesting answer, but: I'm still long as a default position because I'm not really worried yet about the longer perspective upwards (say, looking forward a month from now).

That general positive outlook could change of course, but as long as we stay above what I think are key support lines at $560 (1w BB, 50% fib $440 to $680), and $535 (23% fib from $1160 to $340, 3d BB), I'm okay with the situation...

I think we are simply very cautiously moving ahead, in a "2 steps forward, 1 and 1/2 steps back" rhythm, if for no other reason than that the sentiment of the 2013/2014 bear market is still lingering, and because we are still waiting for that next "fiat floodgate" to open (an ETF, a new exchange associated with names from traditional finance, or even just a new national market that suddenly develops a taste). The USMS auction might play a role too, but I think its effects are overrated.

Well, this thread has officially gone to shit. Where is Oda?

Someone seems to be dumping on 4h MACD divergence... It was a reliable indicator in March, but the market has slowed down since.

I noticed something strange: the bid sum /ask sum ratio for BTCChina has been well below the price for the last 3 months.
The same ratio on Bitstamp has been 'normal', above price most of the time and only dropping when price dropped a lot.
So I have a conspiracy theory: arbitrage should have been easiest between Chinese exchanges, so I would expect the same
strange ratio to appear for Huobi and OKCoin (but I don't know if it is so, if you can get a graph for those it would be great).
However, if Huobi and OKCoin show a 'normal' ratio graph, my conspiracy theory is that they might show fake fiat to boost the bids.
By doing so, they would allow insiders to cash out at reasonably high prices, and after that they might show the true bids. 

Yes, good work.

I agree with this analysis.  Another reliable indicator to observe divergence is OBV.

Cheers,
Nick

 Possible way to explain it to someone with physics/math background:

TA               math                     physics

price            function                 coordinates
MACD           first derivative        speed
histogram      second derivative    acceleration

Edit: replaced "divergence" to "histogram", as more correct.

Yeah...what I meant to say was negative crossover territory.

A small clarification: 1h MACD is still positive, just the divergence went negative.
MACD is a lagging indicator, the divergence is less lagging. This term confusion happens a lot in these forums.

....yet three bars into negative hourly MACD territory and Bitcoin hasn't moved. Seems to be a lack of selling pressure for now and I wouldn't underestimate the power of Bitcoin to keep moving up against the grain of bearish chart indicators.

Noticed the same div. Hourly MACD just crossed as well, so it seems less likely (at least to me) there will be a push to 630.

A similar sized bullish divergence on hourly occurred during the recent local bottom (between $550 and $537) resulting in this spike, so I think, judging from how far that pushed the price and how symmetrical it looks, this might mean a retest of long-term support (the 2013 line, currently at $555~ if I set it correct).

I am calling it that this present rally has very little juice left in it. The following chart shows bearish divergences between the price action and the RSI and MACD, and also shows the Williams %R, which shows that Bitcoin has been hovering around in overbought zone and due a move down. This is all on 1hr chart which is about as close in as I like to base TA on. I am calling time on the rally and would suggest that potential sell points could range from right where are now ($610), up to the 62% Fib retracement target around $630, or the 76% retracement point at $645 at a push. I am not saying that Bitcoin is definitely going to find new lower lows than $538, but the weakness in buying pressure of this rally certainly gives cause for caution and suggests that the rally is of the corrective variety, or more likely, part of an emerging consolidation pattern.