Corrected version of the Time Segmented Volume indicator (TSV). The previous version contained a severe bug. The due credits are in the comment section of the code.
Is there a particular time frame this works best on? I scalp futures. Thanks!
olowshinenine
⋅
Can someone tell me how this works ? Do you use it to trade divergences?
vitelot
⋅
I'm noticing a rise in interest toward this indicator.
Therefore, I would like to highlight that:
1) I found its basic version on TV which was COMPLETELY wrong, so I corrected it according to the information that can be found on the internet
2) I had to copy/paste the header of the wrong version of the indicator, as kindly asked by its author
3) In doing so I copied his btc address which was part of the header; this means that btc account IS NOT mine; I'll never ask for any money at all, above all when the code is just one single line
I only ask for your appreciation. That's overly enough for me.
Take care
plutoman007
⋅
Great indicator, thank you
AnshuGarg
⋅
great work buddy :)
Chromeskull01
⋅
The calculation is correct, but the implementation looks unnecessarily complicated to me. First, since the formular was fixed, the calculation for both rising and falling price is the same, volume * price change. So the if-else for rising and falling price can be resolved. Second, there is no need for the else-then-zero case when price did not change, because this resolves by itself. Volume * price change in this case is volume * 0 which is 0. To me it looks like line 22 can be simplified to: ```t = sum(volume*(close-close[1]),l)``` I'm not a pine script developer but a Java developer, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
vitelot
⋅
@Chromeskull01, you are right. Pls see my answer to Mr/Ms joshwerrmann below.
Good day sir, Great work, I am quite curious about how to calculate? There is no formular on google. The only thing i found is TSV is sum of last 18th volume*absolute price change. I guess this one is wrong cuz based on this there will be no negative value. I just wondering how it works much appreciate,
vitelot
⋅
@debt350k, you are right. The formula you found is the correct one. See my comment to Mr. joshwerrmann below.