|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
thanks for looking; replies below.
> a. You consider absolute threshold values. It is almost useless, you
> should take percentage.
> A threshold = 10 would give hundreds of signals for NDX values and
> rare signals for CSCO or no signal for a stock below 10$. NDX would
> need a threshold=100, which would never give any signal for MSFT.
I think you're assuming that the input to this function is a stock price. I
was thinking it would be an indicator, something like MAM, RSI, RSIStoch,
CCI, MTI etc.. you're still correct that with some indicators, a percentage
change would make more sense, but some are more like linear. for instance,
you'd want to look for 10 unit changes in CCI, not a 10% change.
> b. In your
>
> tracking = 0; // last peak we're comparing to
> action = 0; // last action taken; +1 = up, -1 = down
> > result[0] = 0;
> > for(i = 1; i < BarCount; i++)
> > {
> > result[i] = 0; // default output for this bar if no
> move
> > if(action != 1) // looking for a rise
>
> you begin, in the second line, define action=0.
> Then, without any other "action" reference, you ask
> if(action != 1)
> But, of course "action" is still =0 from the 2nd line and is not
> equal to 1.
notice the 'for' loop, which iterates for every bar. action gets set
initially at the top of the function, outside the loop, meaning that no
action has taken place yet. then the loop goes through each bar, possibly
setting an action value if a threshold has been hit. the test you're talking
about is inside the loop, reacting to the last action set: if we last did an
up move, we're looking for a down move next; if we last went down, we're
looking for an up.
make sense? try running it with MAM as an input, for instance.
> From your description :"...single bar that's at least the threshold
> amount greater than the minimum value seen...", if we agree to
> change the "amount" with "percentage", I have a solution, posted long
> time ago, the "realistic peak condition" and, instead of searching, I
> may repost it.
> I can detect the point which is 3% lower than the last "visible"
> peak. If it is what you search, please let me know and I will revert.
> Dimitris Tsokakis
I'd say that both percentage and simple level conditions would be valuable,
so yes, please, point me at your realistic peak function.
I'm still surprised that it seems difficult to build these kinds of things
in AFL. I think my code does work, but I expected a simpler, array function
version to have appeared by now.
btw, that's not a criticism of you or anyone else here. every language has
things you can express really easily and quickly and ones you can't. I guess
this is one of those not-so-easy combinations.
thanks again, keep in touch,
dave
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/GHeqlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|