If you want to post yet another eSignal ad, just do it - but when you claim you've got a MurreyMath study then it should be an exact duplicate. If you're just showing an incompletely worked out example of some cute line drawing to keep an eSignal pump thread going - great, say that but don't claim it's a MurreyMath study - if it doesn't do the math correctly or only sometimes, it's useless.
The so called "Esignal add" is my expressed surprise as I was trying to write a script for some Gann software I've used ,and Murreymath was one of them. After many days of getting code errors I go to file sharing and there it is as a new file. Have you looked at the code? Tell me what is wrong or are just another basher who bashes just for the sake of it? Some of the lines didn't show up because of my color preference but by my use of the software the calculations are right. I don't know why I bother here as it was just to show how you can duplicate Gann mathematics with a little script language, not to be the next Elite God like yourself.
Plumber I glad you posted the eSignal Murrey stuff. You have to keep on mind here that most of the posters here are better posters than traders. They are frustrated because they have tried to do this and can not. So they bash.
No "bashing" intended - however understand that in the past it's not been enough that eSignal advertises on the forum, there have been innocent looking "wow this is great" posts in the past that turned out to really be from eSignal personnel. So it's easy to be a little suspicious of gushing posts as being more such hype. The point I was making though was that if you post that there's some wonderful Murrey Math study available with some efs, it really should work correctly and when it's validity is called into question, copping out with "it was just an example of what you can do with efs" made the post sound even more like another eSignal hype. If you're not hyping eSignal - sorry. But that not withstanding, the MurreyMath study you posted still doesn't work correctly. The screen snap you posted was way off from what it should have been. If the code for the efs is based on the Kruzel notes that are laying around on the web, that's probably the reason. Those notes are incomplete and if you're using that primative little calculator, it doesn't properly compute the MM frames. It seems to get it right maybe 75% or less of the time - the other 25%+ it's way off. And the intraday timelines shown in the example are also wrong. If you're going to do it right, you can't rely on the Kruzel stuff. I don't think I need to debug your code for you in order to tell you the results are wrong - especially when all I have to do is compare to software that already computes the correct results. One other thought though - if you're going to post gushing "wow, isn't this great" stuff, don't be so thin skinned when people call you on it. Realism isn't bashing.
Well you said not was expected so my apologies. I thought you would reply in a childish manner as have others in the past ( some are like arguing with a kid who keeps saying "I know you are but what am I" BS) and my skin is pretty thick after Mr market telling me what a f@#$ up I am sometimes. The frames I showed were not complete as my color scheme flushed out some of the lines and the frame changes shape when I want to see the 8th's at the end of rows. The Kruzel stuff, could you post a link? I searched google and found nada. I used Murrey's before and it looked pretty accurate, do you use it and to what success? How come you never posted when the Murreymath thread was alive and kicking?
I don't use MM, but I can tell you that the work Chris (the creator of the efs) has done is amazing. I would be very surprised give the level of effort and detail he does if he han't tested it rigorously. On the off chance anyone does find a problem with his formula, I am also pretty sure he would make a fix very quickly. I too think that EFS provides a very powerful tool. I know there are stuides I have created using EFS that I would wasn't able to create using MOST of the API's out there. However EFS isn't for the faint of heart - like most API's there is a trade off between power and ease-of-use. EFS tends more towards the power side. ESignal has created a formula wizard to help create simple formula's, and that will help those trader's who are not programmers produce basic formula's, but it is on its first generation and there are still a few holes in its abilities.
EFS is a nightmare to figure out at first due to the lack of consistent examples and inadequate documentation, but it is certainly powerful enough to create complete automated trading systems from, or any indicator or study that you care to think of. I have come across one problem though - You are limited in the number of symbols you can call in a script to 3, but in general the limits are the imagination as far as I can see... (no, this is not an advert nor an endorsement, nor do I work for e-signal. Just my personal view from working with it for a couple of months... ) Natalie