We are happy to announce the MultiCharts Easter Sale! Learn more
+1 888 340 6572
MultiCharts Project Management
Go to the previous open issue
Go to the previous issue (open or closed)
Please log in to bookmark issues
Open Feature request MC-1848

Alternative Intra-bar Price Movement Assumptions

Go to the next issue (open or closed)
Go to the next open issue

Support alternative Intra-bar Price Movement Assumptions as described below:
If the difference (distance) between Opening price and High is smaller or equal to difference (distance) between Closing price and High, the intra-bar price movement is assumed to be in the order of Open-High-Low-Close. Otherwise, it is assumed to be in the order of Open-Low-High-Close.

For example with O=1356, H=1360, L=1340, C=1357
Using the original assumptions, it will be: Open-High-Low-Close, total distance traveled: 4+20+17=41
Using alternative assumption: High-Open = 4, High-Close = 3, so it will be Open-Low-High-Close. Total distance traveled = 16+20+3=39

Alternative assumption in another words, takes the price movement order which travels the shortest distance.

Steps to reproduce this issue


Comments (2)
user-offline.png  orad (orad)
Feb 01, 2015 - 11:46

In the alternative assumption, if (High-Open == High-Close) then the original assumption could be used.

user-offline.png  JoshM (Jura)
Feb 07, 2015 - 05:32

Thanks Orad, this is a good feature request. It would be great if we can, for example, program our own intra-bar price movements since that would also allow for personal preferences.

Issue basics
  • Type of issue
    Feature request
  • Category
  • Targeted for
    Not determined
  • Status
    Not Reviewed
User pain
  • Type of bug
    Not triaged
  • Likelihood
    Not triaged
  • Effect
    Not triaged
Affected by this issue (2)
People involved
Times and dates
  • Posted at
  • Last updated
Issue details
  • Resolution
    Not determined
  • Severity
Attachments (0)
There is nothing attached to this issue
Commits (0)
There are no code checkins for this issue
Duplicate issues (0)
This issue does not have any duplicates