Thread: The difference between a MA and a non lag MA?

Look for nonlagema. It's an ema that uses the formula.

I think from my understanding is that regular ma is period and doesnt take current cycle period. However a ma take current cycle period and correct period. I imply John Ehler sinewave or polynomial projections come to mind, but thats just my 2 pennies, could be wrong.

Thanks for the explanation Narafa

Found this ALMA download (Free)

http://www.arnaudlegoux.com/?p=1

I installed it and will be using it in my own trading program tomorrow.
Thank you for the information.

Originally Posted by ;

Thank You for the Excuse Narafa

You're more than welcome. Hope it helped...

Regards,

Nader

Take a Look at the Hull Moving Average.
It's about as near a non-lag MA as you'll get

Originally Posted by ;

Check out the Hull Moving Average.
It is about as near a non-lag MA since you will get
Tonkar

The Hull is the finest I've seen.

DEMA, AMA, Hull, Tillson, Jurik, .... Without compromising too much on smoothness they effort to decrease lag and overshoot.

But, the biggest enemy is not lag, it's randomness. For people who need a very simple proof, it is this: the closer price approximates a walk, the closer EVERY system methods to bringing zero expectancy. Or in other words, if MAs would be the signal generator unless they somehow align themselves with genuine market inefficiencies, they are not likely to be any more effective than randomly generated signals.

Originally Posted by ;

DEMA, AMA, Hull, Tillson, Jurik, ....

Disagree on this. The nearer price approximates a completely random walk (in the gaussian, IID sense) the better chance you've got at a non-zero expectancy. In moving averages and actual market behaviour, it's the fat tails and non IID (serial correlation) behaviour that are killers.

Originally Posted by ;

Disagree with this. The nearer price approximates an entirely random walk (from the gaussian, IID feel ) the greater chance you have at a non-zero expectancy. In moving averages and real market behavior, it's the fat tails and non IID (serial correlation) behavior that are killers.

From'random walk' I mean a coin-toss, i.e. exactly 50/50 chance of uptick/downtick at each point. That is the exact same as assuming a perfectly'fair' wheel, the game can't be beaten, because there aren't any inefficiencies.