Comments on: CCI – Making it better

By: san

san — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:12:55 +0000

hi, here is my cci core(part) to plot the cci -Inputs: Price((H+L+c)/3), Length(19), CycPart(1), Avg1Len(5), Avg2Len(7);

Vars: oResult1(0), oResult2(0), temp(0);

value1=_Oscillators(18, Price, Length, CycPart, 1, 0, 1, oResult1, oResult2);

temp = XAverage(oResult1, Avg1Len);
Plot1(temp, “AdaptCCI”);
Plot2(temp, “AdpCCI_hist”);
Plot3(XAverage(temp, Avg2Len), “AvgCCI”);

is this the rigth wave to plot like u?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:00:08 +0000

Does anyone know how to get an anticipator on adaptive CCI? I have been using it in “as is” form, and it has kepr me out of trouble most of the time i.e CCI fixed period must be confirmed by adaptive CCI so when going long I will not take the signal if the adaptive cci is red ( green or grey is fine ).
The issue is that often it is hard to tell what collor the adaptive cci histogram bar will end up being.
Regards,
Th

By: forex mt4

forex mt4 — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:03:29 +0000

forex mt4…

One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger. Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve…

By: CCI Adaptive - Forex Trading

CCI Adaptive - Forex Trading — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:18:41 +0000

[...] CCI Adaptive Does anyone here have the adaptive CCI indicator based on the John Ehlers’s Rocket Science book? I’m interested to checkout the performance compared to the normal CCI after I read the below article. CCI – Making it better | Tucker Report [...]

By: Doug Tucker

Doug Tucker — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:31:04 +0000

Webby,
Regarding the smoothing, thee is no right or wrong. Some people prefer the raw or unsmoothed CCI if they are using it to draw trendlines, which I don’t do. I find a slight smoothing helps to draw my attention to patterns such as the head and shoulders, which seems to pop out much more clearly using the smoothed version, as does the tests of the zero line. With a short parameter there is some lag but not much, so it seems to be a fair tradeoff to make the indicator more clear. I use the weighted average, but only a four period. I did notice that the formula you posted will double the scaling of the CCI, so the 100 line becomes the 200 line. I’d just use the tradestation function, or write it out manually. Regarding using the 21 period parameter, I do like to look at a longer term signal line and 21 period is good for that, but sometime I use a 16 period. I just use the tradestation exponential moving average function for that, and I plot it over the top of the smoother cci along with the histogram of the smoothed cci. I also plot the unsmoothed line, but fairly faint so it doesn’t distract. But I find using a longer smoothing for the basic cci obscures the patterns too much.

By: Webby

Webby — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:36:03 +0000

Doug, I managed to get the Adaptive CCI working from the Ehlers book, but in order to smooth it out I am using the following statement :

CCI_Smoothed = 2 * (WAverage(CCI_Adaptive, WMALength) – .5);

wherein, “CCI_Adaptive” is the raw CCI adaptive value returned from Ehlers formula in the book, and “CCI_Smoothed” is the smoothed out version of the same, which I then plot.

Is this the correct way to go about smoothing the adaptive CCI ? Also, for the smoothing moving average I am using an input variable “WMAlength”, that allows me to see the effects of varying that moving average.

I am currently using a value of 21 for the moving average as that gives me patterns that I can easily recognize and work with for trading. Using smaller lengths (such as 5, 6 etc) creates a lot of whipsawing to and fro over the zero line and makes it difficult to for me to discern the real longer trend.

Am doing this correctly ? and do you have any suggestions for the length of the smoothing moving average ? Your ideas on this would be much appreciated.

By: Doug Tucker

Doug Tucker — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:46:19 +0000

Tony, I did have a problem with the alpha parameter adjustment, and for a long time used fixed CCI values of 21, 34, and 55. In time I became for comfortable using the Ehlers formula without the need for the fixed periods, realizing that the Ehlers formula will never be exact but will get me in the ballpark of the most useful cycle. And I do find on the intra-day tick charts the most common cycles seem to hover around 35 to 40 periods with brief excursions beyond 50 or so during trends, and the only time the cycle shortens to 14 is in chop. The daily charts are much more consistent at between 20 and 30, as you suggest. Doug

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:30:36 +0000

Hi Doug – having experimented a with the variable cycle period on the CCI as explained in your article I find the results interesting to say the least. Having spent some time with the WCCI outfit, (an having heard the resistance NOW mantra on numerous occasions) it is really interesting to it for what it really is. Even more interesting is the fact that the CCI formula as indicated on the WCCI site has a hard coded 20 period lookback scheme! Having coded the Ehlers cycle determining period the following :
1. The results of very small adjustments in the alpha parameter appear to have a huge effect on the cycle period determined. I find this fairly disconcerting, as it becomes hard to find a consistent relationship.
2. The cycle period appears to be the exact inverse of what the WCCI club promotes (14p 5min or less, 20 for anything over 5 mins). Generally it would appear that periods averaging around 50 appear fairly consistently on interday charts, while daily, weekly and monthly charts float around 22-30 periods (barring real chop). Is this consistent with your experience?
3. I must say – the effect of the longer period is remarkable.

Your effort has sparked much food for thought. Thank you !

Regards

Tony

By: John Sykes

John Sykes — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:53:23 +0000

Hi Doug,

Again, thanks for all your input on a variable CCI. I hace had a .efs developed for eSignal of a dynamic (variable) CCI. There are still a couple of bugs but they will soon be gone. If anyone wants this .efs, they can Email me at john@sykesusa.com, and I’ll let them know where to go. It will probably not be free but I can say that I will get little if anything out of it.

I was also a frustrated CCIer who soon realized that the CCI had to be used with a longer period. It had not occurred to me that the period should be variable. You changed that. I think that anyone who puts a dynamic CCI on his charts will immediately see the difference.

But, again, thanks. I’ll post more as we go along.

John

By: Mike Winfrey

Mike Winfrey — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:59:09 +0000

Thanks Doug…I understand your point about the cycle. I can certainly confirm what you’re saying based on observation. The only problem for me is the divergence and as the CCI is designed that will always occur. I also see the divergence in every indicator I’ve seen except when looking at price directly. How obvious is that? Kidding. I have pondered the issue of divergence for quite some time and actually thought I had found a way to minimize it’s occurence with this adaptive cci and it appears to be the best I’ve seen so far. So, NOT BAD I guess is my comment about the adaptive CCI. Pondering this issue for sometime and discussing it with other, my thought has been “if divergence is such an issue for you, why don’t you just trade off price.” A very good friend that you know as well asked me that very question the other night. That finally caused me to think about the problem a bit differently. As a result, I thought how can I accurately represent price without having to look directly at price. The answer came to me to use EMA with a period of 1. That IS price. I put that up and liked it because there was no divergence. Go figure…Kinda liked that. But that wasn’t enough. It was kinda noisy so I used h+l+c/3 to calculate the EMA(10). Smoothed it out considerably. Funny that it has a CCI look which you would expect except there is no zero line. Well I like the look of the CCI so with the help of a friend, we put some bars under the EMA that we use for a purpose I won’t detail here. I also added 4 other EMAs, EMA(2). EMA(3), EMA(4), and EMA(5). Now that gives me some indication of where entries might be. Then as another experiment based on this adaptive CCI study, I added a smoothing component to see what that did. I like what I saw but it’s use will be delayed for a bit while I explore the base EMA chart. I also intend to add the adaptive code in a separate EMA to explore it’s use as a signal line. All I can say now is studying this adaptive CCI has really opened a new world to me in understanding and possibilities. We are in the process now of backtesting some entry rules.

Thanks,
Mike