OK, thx for clarifying. Perhaps I've been a bit to strict on this point-of-order, i.e. nothing personal. Find your contributions useful, and your background interesting.
Indeed, enufsaid. PS --- In [email protected], "sidhartha70" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PS, > > To put your mind at rest, my requests were submitted via the feedback > centre before this thread started... #1517 & #1512. > > Now, lets not waste anymore screen space on this! > > --- In [email protected], "vlanschot" <vlanschot@> wrote: > > > > Actually I did, and my reaction is as much aimed at TJ as others. My > > argument is valid: this thread has become a growing list of requests > > and suggestions. It should have/be moved as OT. I'm not making the > > rules of engagement for this group, I'm just pointing them out to > > keep some order. This should be TJ's responsibility. > > > > PS > > --- In [email protected], "sidhartha70" <sidhartha70@> > > wrote: > > > > > > PS... > > > > > > If you'd read the thread from the beginning you'd realise this was > > > never meant as a discussion about 'requesting features'. The title > > of > > > the thread is obvious. The reason it went 'off on a tangent' is > > > excatly because TJ intervened and REQUESTED feedback on charting > > > features. Please read the FULL thread before pulling the trigger. > > > > > > Now, back to the original topic... > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "vlanschot" <vlanschot@> wrote: > > > > > > > > And there you have it. . . The most important statement of this > > whole > > > > discussion: the FEEDBACK centre is the place where each and > > everyone > > > > of us can submit their "request". I find it very annoying that > > some > > > > people somehow think that their request should get more attention > > > > than others, and decide to post/discuss it in this group. Imagine > > > > what would happen if we all think like that. Also, having the > > > > pretention to think that you somehow can categorize and rank how > > > > people (should) use AB and prioritize enhancements . . . > > Ridiculous. > > > > If you want change, vote for it at the FBC or pay for it. > > > > > > > > PS > > > > --- In [email protected], "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate all suggestions and there is really no problem > > > > > in adding new features provided that there is demand for them. > > > > > I specifically asked for charting suggestions, as this is way > > > > > more "subjective" thing than backtesting and other rule- based > > tools. > > > > > Discretionary traders seem to be very sensitive to all those > > > > > little details and aesthetics. These are are sometimes easy to > > > > develop > > > > > sometimes not, but unless you hear the feedback it is not > > possible > > > > > to know what every single person uses. > > > > > So again, feedback is appreciated. If possible and not too time > > > > consuming > > > > > for you, I greatly appreciate filling the issue via feedback > > > > center. If not, > > > > > I can keep track on my internal list. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Tomasz Janeczko > > > > > amibroker.com > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "sidhartha70" <sidhartha70@> > > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:30 PM > > > > > Subject: [amibroker] Re: 'Rule Based' versus 'Discretionary' > > > > trading... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How97, > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. You've stated nothing that I haven't already. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do use other software... MarketDelta & have been looking at > > > > Ninja > > > > > > with a market profile plug in as an alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > Like others, I'm not desperately keen on using multiple > > software > > > > > > systems. I'd rather try and get it under one roof. And the > > truth > > > > is it > > > > > > really wouldn't be hard for TJ to add some of that > > functionality. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm adding my voice to a largely dominant rule based crowd... > > I > > > > hope > > > > > > you're ok with free expression of wishes and ideas...?? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think others have also made it clear on this thread that > > they'd > > > > like > > > > > > to see some more functionality on the charting side too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "how97" <101.158294@> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I believe it is clear that the large majority of the AB > > users > > > > want > > > > > >> to have the possibility for rule-based trading, backtesting, > > > > > >> automatic analysis, automatic trading etc. For that group > > > > Amibroker > > > > > >> is just excellent and it is constantly enhanced in these > > > > > >> possibilities. And that is what the large majority of its > > users > > > > > >> wants. And AB strongly supported by its users and driven by > > > > their > > > > > >> wishes. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The large majority of users is clearly not the discretionary > > > > > >> traders. These may need better or specialized charting. That > > may > > > > > >> well be. If this better charting software exists already as > > you > > > > are > > > > > >> saying, why are you not using it, why did you come here to > > AB? > > > > What > > > > > >> were you looking for? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think it is also a clear preference of Tomasz to develop > > AB > > > > into a > > > > > >> direction where most of its users wants to ahve it. And that > > is > > > > > >> good. A lot of the stuff in AB is much too complex if you > > are > > > > just > > > > > >> looking for other kinds of charting. So why bother? You need > > to > > > > use > > > > > >> a different software. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> By the way: In my opinion AB allows excellent charting. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards > > > > > >> how97 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> --- In [email protected], "sidhartha70" > > <sidhartha70@> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > From my perspective, and this is really why I connected > > > > charting to > > > > > >> > the ideas of 'rule based' vs 'discretionary' trading... if > > you > > > > are > > > > > >> a > > > > > >> > discretionary trader, from a software perspective it is > > ALL > > > > about > > > > > >> > visibility. If the software you are using doesn't or can't > > > > give you > > > > > >> > the best visibility available then you are at a > > disadvanatge. > > > > You > > > > > >> > can't make sensible discretionary trading decisions > > without > > > > being > > > > > >> able > > > > > >> > to see how current market structure has evolved, what > > market > > > > > >> dynamics > > > > > >> > are at play, how the auction process is evolving at > > different > > > > time > > > > > >> > frames etc..etc.. You simply don't get that from bar & > > candle > > > > > >> charts. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Hence my obsession with Market Profile & Equivolume and > > > > generally > > > > > >> more > > > > > >> > accessability and adaptability to AmiBroker's charting > > > > facilicites. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Currently it's a fabulous piece of software, particualrly > > > > for 'rule > > > > > >> > based' traders.... But probably a less fabulous piece of > > > > software > > > > > >> for > > > > > >> > discretionary day traders for example. But of course, I > > > > appreciate, > > > > > >> > it's hard to be all things to all men... > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > --- In [email protected], Ken Close <ken45140@> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > One simple suggestion for charting improvement: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Put in the ability to insert a "Tab" character in a > > Title > > > > > >> statement > > > > > >> > in order > > > > > >> > > to make it easier to produce multi-line tables > > > > with "columns" > > > > > >> left > > > > > >> > justified > > > > > >> > > no matter how many decimal places in previous values in > > the > > > > same > > > > > >> row. I > > > > > >> > > have done it via complex IIF statements but how nice it > > > > would be > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > insert > > > > > >> > > the code for a tab character to create columns. No, I > > do > > > > not > > > > > >> want to do > > > > > >> > > this with the gfx commands (too complex for this > > > > application). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Ken > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> > > From: [email protected] > > > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> > On Behalf > > > > > >> > > Of Tomasz Janeczko > > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:33 PM > > > > > >> > > To: [email protected] > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [amibroker] 'Rule Based' > > versus 'Discretionary' > > > > > >> trading... > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hello, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Not wanting to hijack this thread but whenever I ask > > about > > > > some > > > > > >> itemized > > > > > >> > > list of what is exactly "weak" in AB charting, I don't > > > > receive > > > > > >> any > > > > > >> > > meaningful reply. I would really want to know some > > objective > > > > list > > > > > >> > instead of > > > > > >> > > statements I heard on ET that "charts are ugly" which > > for me > > > > > >> > unfortunatelly > > > > > >> > > means nothing, considering the hunderds of ways charts > > can > > > > be > > > > > >> customized > > > > > >> > > according to user taste in AB. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly > > to > > > > > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > > > > > > > > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check > > DEVLOG: > > > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > For other support material please check also: > > > > > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
