Quote from manz66:
One company claiming there statistical based Oscillator generates 'cleaner crossover signals, and more reliable divergences'. It is similar to macd, but statistacal based.
The other one is quote:
"The KEES PeakOscillator is a simple oscillator from which classic divergence signals are generated, but with two major differences. Unlike traditional oscillators which are derived from moving average with set lengths, the PeakOscillator is derived from a mathematically sound, statistical evaluation of trend which looks at over 50 different trend lengths, rather than just two".
Is it true?
Nice post.
Say you were doing the nononsense thing, i.e., creatiing your own method of trading because all those sold by others are no good for nononsense.
Apparently KEES assembled 50 different length MA's and then statistically assigned then to price patterns where they worked best. It looks like Kees plugs in the appropriate bunch for the contemporary situation just instead of using the same ones all the time.
Kees is apparently looking for divergence as the way to make money. MACD is a combo of some MA's too. MA's of MA's it turns out. Divergence and MA's, etc are thought to be helpful in ET when you look at all the mentioned uses.
A peak oscillator is probably a trough oscillator too. So the focus could be taking profits primarily at peaks/troughs.
Because everyone knows that peaks/troughs may be followed by lateral trends or opposite trends, the "peak oscillator is probably not an entry tool but more and "end of something" tool.
My bet is the sales literature for both talk about using lagging indicators to make money when divergence happens.
Ask what is diverging from what? If an equation puts together data from the past (like say a trend continuing to unfold), then when divergence occurs between the indicator and the price or something, it most likely tells you something ended.
OT
To make money it is intersting to consider the present tense question: What do we need to know right now?
Personally I have come to the conclusion that I should be the market as a fundamental consideration for making money.
I feel exiting is only a concern when I am not any longer making money.
So all I do is consider What do I need to know right now in the present. None of the aspects you are considering come to mind for me.
Alternatively, I do know to always be looking for the correct thing.
I am in the market; it is making money. I see profits accumulating. I glance around and monitor. I keep on the right side of the market.