What does each of these formulations represent, if you please?

(v*(2*c-h-l)/(h-l))  for 21 periods, and

((2*C-H-L)/(H-L))*v + ((2*C1-H1-L1)/(H1-L1))*v +((2*C2-H2-L2)/(H2-L2))*v + ((2*C3-H3-L3)/(H3-L3))*v +((2*C4-H4-L4)/(H4-L4))*v +((2*C5-H5-L5)/(H5-L5))*v + ((2*C6-H6-L6)/(H6-L6))*v +((2*C7-H7-L7)/(H7-L7))*v + ((2*C8-H8-L8)/(H8-L8))*v + ((2*C9-H9-L9)/(H9-L9))*v + ((2*C10-H10-L10)/(H10-L10))*v + ((2*C11-H11-L11)/(H11-L11))*v + ((2*C12-H12-L12)/(H12-L12))*v + ((2*C13-H13-L13)/(H13-L13))*v + ((2*C14-H14-L14)/(H14-L14))*v + ((2*C15-H15-L15)/(H15-L15))*v + ((2*C16-H16-L16)/(H16-L16))*v + ((2*C17-H17-L17)/(H17-L17))*v + ((2*C18-H18-L18)/(H18-L18))*v +((2*C19-H19-L19)/(H19-L19))*v + ((2*C20-H20-L20)/(H20-L20))*v

Why are they not the same?

tedk13

V is volume

C is the close

H is the high

L is the low

The reason the 21-Period Simple Moving Average of the shorter formula doesn't equal the longer formula is that the longer formula is not incremented volume along with price. You need to have something more like:

(V * (2 * C - H - L) / (H - L) + V1 * (2 * C1 - H1 - L1) / (H1 - L1) + V2 * (2 * C2 - H2 - L2) / (H2 - L2) + V3 * (2 * C3 - H3 - L3) / (H3 - L3) + V4 * (2 * C4 - H4 - L4) / (H4 - L4) + V5 * (2 * C5 - H5 - L5) / (H5 - L5) + V6 * (2 * C6 - H6 - L6) / (H6 - L6) + V7 * (2 * C7 - H7 - L7) / (H7 - L7) + V8 * (2 * C8 - H8 - L8) / (H8 - L8) + V9 * (2 * C9 - H9 - L9) / (H9 - L9) + V10 * (2 * C10 - H10 - L10) / (H10 - L10) + V11 * (2 * C11 - H11 - L11) / (H11 - L11) + V12 * (2 * C12 - H12 - L12) / (H12 - L12) + V13 * (2 * C13 - H13 - L13) / (H13 - L13) + V14 * (2 * C14 - H14 - L14) / (H14 - L14) + V15 * (2 * C15 - H15 - L15) / (H15 - L15) + V16 * (2 * C16 - H16 - L16) / (H16 - L16) + V17 * (2 * C17 - H17 - L17) / (H17 - L17) + V18 * (2 * C18 - H18 - L18) / (H18 - L18) + V19 * (2 * C19 - H19 - L19) / (H19 - L19) + V20 * (2 * C20 - H20 - L20) / (H20 - L20)) / 21

Bruce,

Thanks, but

If I understand you correctly, after making the change you suggested and assuming I made no error, I expected to get identical results with each of the formulas. But I did not.

Why is this?

tedk13 

A Custom Indicator with the following settings (which is the only thing I can think of in TC2000 which would have anything to do with "(v*(2*c-h-l)/(h-l))  for 21 periods"):

- Period: 21
- Average Type: Simple
- Formula: V * (2 * C - H - L) / (H - L)

Produces exactly the same results as a Custom Indicator with the following settings:

- Period: 1
- Average Type: Simple
- Formula: (V * (2 * C - H - L) / (H - L) + V1 * (2 * C1 - H1 - L1) / (H1 - L1) + V2 * (2 * C2 - H2 - L2) / (H2 - L2) + V3 * (2 * C3 - H3 - L3) / (H3 - L3) + V4 * (2 * C4 - H4 - L4) / (H4 - L4) + V5 * (2 * C5 - H5 - L5) / (H5 - L5) + V6 * (2 * C6 - H6 - L6) / (H6 - L6) + V7 * (2 * C7 - H7 - L7) / (H7 - L7) + V8 * (2 * C8 - H8 - L8) / (H8 - L8) + V9 * (2 * C9 - H9 - L9) / (H9 - L9) + V10 * (2 * C10 - H10 - L10) / (H10 - L10) + V11 * (2 * C11 - H11 - L11) / (H11 - L11) + V12 * (2 * C12 - H12 - L12) / (H12 - L12) + V13 * (2 * C13 - H13 - L13) / (H13 - L13) + V14 * (2 * C14 - H14 - L14) / (H14 - L14) + V15 * (2 * C15 - H15 - L15) / (H15 - L15) + V16 * (2 * C16 - H16 - L16) / (H16 - L16) + V17 * (2 * C17 - H17 - L17) / (H17 - L17) + V18 * (2 * C18 - H18 - L18) / (H18 - L18) + V19 * (2 * C19 - H19 - L19) / (H19 - L19) + V20 * (2 * C20 - H20 - L20) / (H20 - L20)) / 21

Note that the Intraday Intensity topic would seem to indicate that Intraday Intensity is actually the 21-Period Volume Weighted Moving Average of (2 * C - H - L) / (H - L). If this is the case, the formula given in that topic would be a better representation of a 21-Period Intraday Intensity than what you have written in your first post.

Bruce,

As always, thanks for your help.

tedk13

Bruce -

In regard to your post of September 24, 2012 regarding 21-period intraday intensity:

If I plot both versions in different colors in the middle window in Version 7, I get graphs that are relatively the same shape, but are offset from each other, and have remarkably different scales.  One goes from a  negative fraction to a  positive fraction, while the other goes from a very large negative number to a fairly large positive number.  Why do you think that is?

Jerry

Bruce -

I stand corrected.  One of your posts in May 2011 divided the results by the sum of the volumes for 21 days, my revised  plots lay on top of each other and are identical.  However, the scales are still off by orders of magnitude, for the same stock and data.  Why would that be?

Sorry,

Jerry

It turns out, interestingly enough, that the order of magnitue difference in the two scales is exactly 21, with the custom indicator using period 21 with the simple formula, has the smaller scale.

Jerry

They aren't just the same shape in my copy of TC2000 version 7, they have exactly the same value as well.

Are you sure the Period setting of the Custom Indicator with the shorter formula in it is set to 21 and the Period setting of the Custom Indicator with the longer formula in it is set to 1? Are you using the exact setups from my Monday, September 24, 2012 5:24:09 PM ET post?