Support Board
Date/Time: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 04:02:56 +0000
User Email Questions
View Count: 1774
| [2013-09-07 03:15:04] |
| |
|
3) Indicator test using spreadsheet to confirm issue. Indicator on indicator example: I just checked the Fast Stochastic RAW K with an RSI and the calculation is wrong. Steps to recreate a) Add Stochastic RSI as comparison (14). There is only 1 parameter for both the RSI and the HH/LL look-back in the Stochastic calculation. b) Add basic RSI (14). Ignore smoothing or set to 1. c) Add Fast Stochastic (Raw K) 'Based On:' RSI in a) above. Use 'Input Data for Last = RSI' and Ignore %D. The shape of synthetic Stochastic RSI closely mirrors the RSI except in amplitude and is no longer bound by 0 - 100, lower and upper ranges. The indicator output is incorrect. *** Note re Stochastic RSI The RSI looks back over period of Bars to arrive at RS, then RSI of close. The Stochastic looks back to derive values from the HH/LL so why is there a Reference to RSI Average type? There is no smoothing element? Sierra Chart Support |
| [2013-09-12 04:08:54] |
| |
|
The study output may very well not be correct because most likely it is not exactly duplicating the Stochastic RSI study calculation. This does not mean there is a problem. It may not be technically possible to do by basing a study on a study. The RSI looks back over period of Bars to arrive at RS, then RSI of close. The Stochastic looks back to derive values from the HH/LL so why is there a Reference to RSI Average type? There is no smoothing element?
The RSI calculation does require moving average calculations. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2013-09-12 12:37:57] |
| User92573 - Posts: 530 |
|
Its actually simpler than that and the output produces a mathematical error rather than just visual. Technically it should be identical? As a test I mimicked the 'Stochastic RSI' study, using a same values Stochastic and RSI where the Stochastic in this case derived its input from the RSI. Here is the 'possible' error. The values in the 'Stochastic derived from RSI' now range from below '0' minus, to greater than '100' which shouldn't happen. My compliments on a great program. I should point out that I am not using this configuration so it's not an issue for me. I was just evaluating some indicators and comparing the SC spreadsheet to my own. I just thought it was worth reporting. Many thanks. |
| [2013-09-12 12:47:54] |
| |
|
There is no mathematical error. The results you are getting is based upon what you are doing when you are basing one study on another. There is no error. That is a 100% impossibility. If you are trying to point out an error to us, then we cannot recognize it because we know there cannot be an error to begin with. There is a misunderstanding of basing a study on another study. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2013-09-12 12:50:32
|
| [2013-09-12 19:08:34] |
| User92573 - Posts: 530 |
|
Okay, I'm a little lost and I'd like to clarify things as I'm getting to the end of my trial (4 days left) and so far the people I have spoken to have been very helpful and the software seems excellent. The point I made was simply that the Stochastic (Raw K in my test) by the nature of its formula will range between 0 and 100, and is a % value which depicts the close in relation to the previous 'n' period HH/LL. When I substituted another input still a data series (as opposed to the main graph in my test) the values ranged above and below the 0% to 100%. 2 x Screenshots attached. That was the only point I was making. I was told that a study could use the value from a previous study. As I'd hoped to use SC for my presentations (C++ is low level and very robust) the next of which is to 300+ trader as well as in my trading, you can appreciate that I need to understand exactly what I can do; what I cant do; and if the results are as anticipated. This is just being thorough as I cannot stand up and apologise that I'd overlooked or hadn't noticed that 'xyz' was incorrect! In this test the output confused me so I politely forwarded this to support. Would it be possible to extend my trial another 7 - 10 days as I have am still working hard to get to grips with the program while managing my current work load? |
 Stochastic query 2.PNG / V - Attached On 2013-09-12 19:07:39 UTC - Size: 82.53 KB - 463 views Stochastic query 1.PNG / V - Attached On 2013-09-12 19:07:54 UTC - Size: 29.32 KB - 469 views |
| [2013-09-13 03:12:55] |
| |
|
We can see what the problem is from these images. Otherwise, we would never have known. The Stochastic study requires three different price inputs. High, Low and Last. For High and Low you are using the two horizontal lines from the RSI. This is not valid. You need to set all three of them to the single RSI Subgraph. We have given you a trial extension. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: