Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Papa Lazarou

CQG Missing Several Key Indicators

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I've just started using CQG, from previously using eSignal. I do like the look of CQG so far. However, I'm used to having the esignalcentral forum to discuss indicators - most of which seem to already be in the program or easily downloaded from people sharing in the forums there.

 

However, I can't for the life of me find an equivalent CQG forum until finding TradersLab. Any ideas where I can get the following indicators in CQG or if there are any CQG dedicated forums out there??

 

Chaikin Money Flow

Money Flow Index

ATR based trailing stop.

 

Appreciate any help or direction.

 

Cheers

Papa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Papa,

 

Are you familiar with the CQG formula and toolbox. If you have the coding behind the indicators, you should be able to replicate them as custom study.

 

Let me search around to see if any of my buddies have those available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Soultrader. It's appreciated.

 

I'm just having a play around with it now. I guess I will have to attempt to learn it somehow and code these studies myself. Hopefully you'll be able to find some of them. Fingers crossed!!

 

Very suprised they're not included though.

 

I'll wait to hear from you before I make an amateurish attempt!!

 

Thanks again

Papa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Papa,

 

I was able to obtain Chaikin and MFI for CQG. Please see the below threads:

 

1. http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f46/chaikin-money-flow-for-cqg-5135.html

2. http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f46/money-flow-index-for-cqg-5136.html

 

Unfortunately the ATR trailing stop is not available... I can not seem to find anyone with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Soultrader!

 

The MFI seems to be working great.

 

Sorry I meant Chaikin Money Flow, not the Chaikin Oscillator....

 

I've found the formula for CMF.....

 

CMF = SUM(AD, n) / SUM(VOL, n)

where n = Period

 

and here's an article on it just for your info.... http://www.linnsoft.com/tour/techind/cmf.htm

 

Do you know anyone that might have this?

 

Thanks

Papa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Papa,

 

Let me see if I can find it. No guarantees though. I guess one could write it but im no coder. (tried over and over again but still cant seem to figure out how to program!)

 

I do have a coder who builds conditionals, studies, backtests, etc... for me so will ask if he's already got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, thanks a lot for your time and effort.

 

Looking at the 'formula' behind the CMF it doesn't seem like it would be very difficult to code - I just need to learn the syntax for CQG though. I'll give it a stab and see where I get to in the mean time!

 

Papa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me again....

 

I've coded the following CMF which seems to work.....

 

Sum(A_D(@) ,period) / Sum(Vol(@) ,period)

 

This seems to work with no syntax errors, but the 2nd condition in the sum brackets automatically changes in the code from 'period' to '8' when pasting the above line into the custom study formula box .....

 

Sum(A_D(@) ,8) / Sum(Vol(@) ,8)

 

And I have no options once the study is in place to change the period. it seems fixed at 8.

 

If you could ask your friend if he knows why, that would be great.

 

Also, could you ask him what the '@' signs means? Does that just mean 'value'?

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Papa,

 

@ simply means value I think. So a -1 would indicate volume one bar back a -2 would indicate volume 2 bars back. You can change this in the toolbox area.

 

Also, in order to change the parameters.... simply highlight the line and hit the setup button. (see pic below)

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=8864&stc=1&d=1229518390

time.png.f17c80d6625cf8e7118080f2a4d39442.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

Thanks, I found the param bit that was causing me grief!! :-)

 

I've come up with this now....

 

Sum((((Close(@)- Low(@))-(High(@)- Close(@)))/(High(@)- Low(@)))* Vol(@),period) / Sum(Vol(@),period)

 

It's strange. At times it seems to look like reasonable values (i.e. +0.30, -0.25 etc), but the you change the timeframe or look back into the past and the values go very wrong! +9,500 as an example.

 

It should literally be the Accumulation distribution / volume for the same lookback period. Really can't figure out why it's not working as it should. Any ideas?

 

Obviously I've done something wrong, just don't know what!!

 

Thanks

Papa

Edited by Papa Lazarou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems it was just a scaling issue. The scaling had gone a bit wild, ( i think that's what it is anyway!)

 

 

 

I've uploaded the pac for anyone to import and test.

 

If people have any other charting packages could they please test my CQG version of CMF against another package to see if the values are the same?

 

Thanks

Papa.

cmf.pac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course. But I'm really not sure if it's correct!! I'd like some people to review / test it if possible!

 

:-)

 

Also, remember you published the other chaikin study, which isn't the CMF, i think it's the Chaikin Oscillator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.