[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [amibroker] Re: Jake Bernstein Momentum formula



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

 

The original question was is it better to trade breakouts or reversals
at S/R.
 
*** The original issue was S&R vs. momentum and the thought expressed was that both were right but not at the same time.  My response was that price levels and momentum provide different information and could be used together.  This has nothing to do with breakouts/reversals.

My definition of OB/OS indicator is anything that is supposed to tell
you that the market has moved far enough in one direction and will
reverse. The price levels are supposed to do that.
 
*** Ahhh.  Now things become a bit clearer.  Your definition of OB/OS is your definition but it is nothing more than a price target.  This is quite different from the way OB/OS are commonly defined which is in terms of extremes in momentum.  Price targets do not provide this information.  Apples and oranges.  However, one is free to define anything in anyway but communication will tend to breakdown.

S/R is materially different than calculated numbers that are expected
to predict the future because they form in real time based on trader
actions. If you don't recognize that, I don't think there is anything
I could say to convince you of it.
 
*** Again, S&R are highly correlated with Fibonacci, etc. and therefore are not a unique entity.  If this were not the case, one could not successfully use Fibonacci patterns, etc.  Contrary to your response to my rhetorical question "Why is this", the correlation has nothing to do with regression to the mean which perhaps reflects your definition of OB/OS.  The fact is that nobody know "Why is this" although as I indicated a range of possibilities have been proposed.

No they don't! 15-20 years ago, I went through a period where I traded
Fibonacci levels exclusively.
 
*** Trading anything exclusively without confirmation from other stuff is usually problematic.  There are a "zillion" Fibonacci levels, Gann levels, S&R levels, etc. which are nothing more than heads-up levels.  Without input from something else there is no justification to assume that a particular level is "the" level.  In addition, one has to define how much slop is allowed around a level before it is invalidated and even how a pivot is defined.  These simple boundary conditions can and do vary considerably between traders.  However, if you are satisfied that Fibonacci is of no value then so be it (I'm not in the missionary business).  Suffice it to say that of the traders, newsletters, blogs, etc. that I am aware of your view is at best a minority opinion - but that's OK.  Your use of Fibonacci did not work for some reason but that does not mean that others do not use it in a way that is beneficial.  Similarly, I doubt that floor traders would agree with Tucker's analysis of their pivots because they undoubtedly use them in a way that works for them which Tucker does not take into account.  In fact, many of the things that Tucker poo-poos are routinely used successfully by traders (e.g., spreads which he concluded cannot beat T-bills - LOL) so I would take his conclusions with a grain of salt.
 
This type of debate is no different than the ongoing one between practioners of different Elliott Wave schools (e.g., Prechter, Miner, etc.) regarding which is better and go on forever because it is just about impossible to pin things down quantitiatively.  The bottom line is that each trader uses what works for them and if it doesn't they either change or disappear. 
 
We are both fortunate because we have found something that works for us and that's a good place to terminate this discussion as it is on the verge of becoming circular.
 
Bill
 
----- Original Message -----
From: bilbo0211
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:03 PM
Subject: [amibroker] Re: Jake Bernstein Momentum formula

>>Your rephrasing about simultaneous breakout/reversing, etc. misses
the mark and does not address my comment.<<

I already said I agree with your comment; however, your comment is a
non sequitur!

The original question was is it better to trade breakouts or reversals
at S/R.

You disagreed with "both right, but not at the same time", implying
you could simultaneously and profitable trade a breakout and reversal
of the same S/R.

>>I also don't agree that anything in the price level group (S&R,
Fibonacci, Gann, etc.) falls into the OB/OS indicator category<<

My definition of OB/OS indicator is anything that is supposed to tell
you that the market has moved far enough in one direction and will
reverse. The price levels are supposed to do that.

>>or that S&R is distinct from the rest of the group<<

S/R is materially different than calculated numbers that are expected
to predict the future because they form in real time based on trader
actions. If you don't recognize that, I don't think there is anything
I could say to convince you of it.

>>S&R levels are highly correlated with these levels as they must be
and are, therefore, not a distinct entity from the others.  Why is this?<<

Because of the principle of regression to the mean.

>>As for Fibonacci and to a lesser extent Gann, they work too often
and too exactly to be classified as crude.<<

No they don't! 15-20 years ago, I went through a period where I traded
Fibonacci levels exclusively. I learned several things from that
experience the 2 most revealing are:

Fibonacci 'clusters' don't work any better than single Fibonacci levels.

and

If you draw all the Fibonacci levels for all price swings on all time
frames you will get a lot of price levels. Prices reverse near those
levels less than 50% of the time.

Some financial experts believe Fibonacci levels are worthless. I have
spent enough time with them to recognize that they have some value.
They are very crude OB/OS indicator and can be helpful in combination
with other factors in deciding when to take a trade.

Just because prices reverse exactly at Fibonacci levels sometimes is
not significant. If you draw random lines on a chart, prices will
reverse at those lines sometimes as well. Because of the principle of
regression to the mean, prices reverse direction very frequently.

Tucker (http://tuckerreport.com/) did some research comparing random
lines to floor trader pivot levels and discovered that there was no
difference  between the 2 in their ability to reverse prices.

Bill

--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "wavemechanic" <timesarrow@xxx> wrote:
>
> Your rephrasing about simultaneous breakout/reversing, etc. misses
the mark and does not address my comment.  I also don't agree that
anything in the price level group (S&R, Fibonacci, Gann, etc.) falls
into the OB/OS indicator category or that S&R is distinct from the
rest of the group.  I do agree that pivot levels are a somewhat
different animal which is why I did not mention them and I do not use
them.  To the extent that pivot levels work probably reflects crowd
behavior (e.g., floor traders all use the same calculation).
>
> As for Fibonacci and to a lesser extent Gann, they work too often
and too exactly to be classified as crude.  They are widely used and I
am not aware of any analysis that demonstrates they are crude.  In
fact, in my experience, as well as with a number of other traders that
I interact with, the accuracy (particularly with Fibonacci) is often
remarkable.  Similarly, S&R levels are highly correlated with these
levels as they must be and are, therefore, not a distinct entity from
the others.  Why is this?
>
> As with pivot levels one could argue that these levels are a
self-fulfilling prophecy, reflecting everybody aiming for the same
price (or time) target.  That could be but much has been written about
the "fundamental" nature of these numbers in a variety of physical
systems, the connection between the growth of dynamic systems and the
Fibonacci series, etc.  Personally, although I find this interesting I
don't know if it makes sense to worry about extending this type of
thinking to markets.  From my perspective, the bottom line is that it
works well and that's all that I need.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>   From: bilbo0211
>   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:04 AM
>   Subject: [amibroker] Re: Jake Bernstein Momentum formula
>
>
>   >>I don't buy that (i.e., "both right, but not at the same time").<<
>
>   In our current context, let me rephrase what you are disagreeing with:
>
>   Prices can breakout at S/R or reverse at S/R, just not at the same
time.
>
>   >>When used properly price levels (e.g., S&R, Fibonacci, Gann, etc.)
>   and momentum provide distinctly different information and are not
>   duplicative.<<
>
>   While I agree with what you said in principle, I make a very clear
>   distinction between S/R and Fibonacci, Gann, Floor Trader Pivots, PTT,
>   etc.
>
>   S/R occur because of specific trader behaviors. The others are "magic"
>   calculated numbers that are very crude (and I do mean very crude)
>   measures of prices being O/B or O/S.
>
>   Bill
>
>   --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "wavemechanic" <timesarrow@> wrote:
>   >
>   > I don't buy that (i.e., "both right, but not at the same time").
>   When used properly price levels (e.g., S&R, Fibonacci, Gann, etc.) and
>   momentum provide distinctly different information and are not
>   duplicative.  As a result, there is no reason not to use them together
>   and I for one always do.
>   >
>   > Bill
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: brian_z111
>   >   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:54 PM
>   >   Subject: [amibroker] Re: Jake Bernstein Momentum formula
>   >
>   >
>   >   As Yuki said, "they are both right, but not at the same time".
>   >
>   >   The company, and dicussion, around the coffee table is good
but as
>   >   Ralph Vince said "trading is not an intellectual exercise, it
is more
>   >   like a street fight".
>   >
>   >   Forget right or wrong - get in there and beat the heck out of
every
>   >   opponent (mean reversion, trend trading, Hurst, S/R) what ever
comes
>   >   along.
>   >
>   >   (that means work them over with backtesting - what is the most
you
>   >   can squeeze out of that style e.g. a reversion to mean trade -
can
>   >   you do better if you change it up a bit - when you reach
exhaustion
>   >   point with that trade then you know exactly what its limits
are - be
>   >   honest with yourself - have you really squeezed all of the
juice out
>   >   of that style - after a while you start to see that sometimes the
>   >   same opponent returns in another outfit and you can't be bothered
>   >   beating up on the same old foe over and over).
>   >
>   >   When they are all defeated keep your eyes peeled and your nerves
>   >   steeled for any new challengers who are coming along and give
them a
>   >   hiding too.
>   >
>   >   P.S. anyone can see my trading biases but they can also see I am
>   >   thinking about, and paying respect to, trading styles that
don't come
>   >   naturally to me.
>   >
>   >   brian_z
>   >
>   >
>   >   --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Louis Préfontaine"
>   >   <rockprog80@> wrote:
>   >   >
>   >   > Thanks Brian. Indeed, that looks like prehistoric stuff...
>   >   >
>   >   > BTW, what is your opinion about the S/R breakout vs
reversion to
>   >   mean
>   >   > debate?
>   >   >
>   >   > Thanks,
>   >   >
>   >   > Louis
>   >   >
>   >   > 2008/5/8 brian_z111 <brian_z111@>:
>   >   >
>   >   > >   If your trading system rules are based on things like
"buy when
>   >   the
>   >   > > short term moving ave crosses the long term moving ave".
>   >   > >
>   >   > > The MA is looking back so many periods to make its
calculation
>   >   e.g. MA
>   >   > > (C,15) is looking back 15 periods.
>   >   > >
>   >   > > If you test a range of MA periods, to select your best MA
>   >   crossover
>   >   > > system, then you are optimising the lookback period (at least
>   >   that is
>   >   > > what I mean).
>   >   > >
>   >   > > brian_z
>   >   > >
>   >   > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%
>   >   40yahoogroups.com>, "Louis
>   >   > > Préfontaine"
>   >   > > <rockprog80@> wrote:
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > Hi Brian and everyone,
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > What exactly do you mean by "optimisation of lookback
period"?
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > I had a lot of fun reading this thread. I wonder what is
better:
>   >   > > > support/resistance breakout or reversion to mean. Worked
with
>   >   > > both; don't
>   >   > > > know yet what works better. I've seen people been sure
of their
>   >   > > opinions,
>   >   > > > but I'd like to read some arguments...
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > Louis
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > 2008/5/8 brian_z111 <brian_z111@>:
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > > It's just an opinion, but it is based on observation.
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > I'm referring to systems designed by optimising lookback
>   >   periods.
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > I'm happy to be proved wrong ...so you are saying we can
>   >   achieve
>   >   > > > > better than 30-40%PA, on long term average (through
various
>   >   market
>   >   > > > > cycles) using 'optimisation of lookback period'
techniques?
>   >   (EOD,
>   >   > > no
>   >   > > > > leveraging).
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > brian_z
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%
>   >   40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
>   >   > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
>   >   > >
>   >   > > > > "bilbo0211" <bilbod@> wrote:
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > "I will stick to my prediction that around 30%PA EOD
>   >   trading is
>   >   > > a
>   >   > > > > > limit for indicators that use lookback periods and
that to
>   >   > > achieve
>   >   > > > > > more than this requires a different approach (as I
say you
>   >   are
>   >   > > both
>   >   > > > > > correct except I believe that Steve is talking about
>30%PA
>   >   > > > > returns)."
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > Is this just your opinion or do you have something that
>   >   > > approaches
>   >   > > > > > 'scientific proof' of this allegation?
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > In "The Profit Magic of Stock Transaction Timing" by
J M
>   >   Hurst,
>   >   > > the
>   >   > > > > > author claims the theoretical maximum annual ROI for
stock
>   >   > > trading
>   >   > > > > is
>   >   > > > > > 2400%. ROI is directly related to the holding period
for
>   >   each
>   >   > > trade
>   >   > > > > > and being fully invested at all times (the 'Magic'
is in the
>   >   > > power
>   >   > > > > of
>   >   > > > > > compounding).
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > Hurst recorded the results of a 6 week real time trading
>   >   > > experiment
>   >   > > > > in
>   >   > > > > > which his performance trading high beta stocks
approached
>   >   his
>   >   > > > > > theoretical maximum annual ROI.
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > Hurst waited until the dominant cycles in his trading
>   >   instrument
>   >   > > > > were
>   >   > > > > > in alignment before trading (this is also called
multiple
>   >   time
>   >   > > frame
>   >   > > > > > or multiple fractal alignment). He primarily used
daily and
>   >   > > weekly
>   >   > > > > charts.
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > The theoretical maximum ROI is actually much higher
than
>   >   2400%
>   >   > > if
>   >   > > > > you
>   >   > > > > > use intraday charts and leveraged trading instruments.
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > If you look in the Amibroker Trading System Yahoo
group, you
>   >   > > will
>   >   > > > > find
>   >   > > > > > a poll of results of people's mechanical trading
systems.
>   >   IIRC,
>   >   > > the
>   >   > > > > > best ones listed returned over 400% per year.
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > Bill
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%
>   >   40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
>   >   > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
>   >   > > > > "brian_z111" <brian_z111@> wrote:
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > 20 - (- 9.3_ == approx delta 30% PA in my books.
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > Thanks Yuki for confirming this.
>   >   > > > > > > Now I don't have to post a 30% system (as I promised
>   >   Louis) to
>   >   > > > > prove
>   >   > > > > > > my benchmark is correct.
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > Actually I agree with both you and Steve (the real
>   >   problem is
>   >   > > > > > > semantics since IMO close analysis would show that
most
>   >   of us
>   >   > > are
>   >   > > > > > > moementum traders and also that most of us are
using a
>   >   kind of
>   >   > > > > S/R in
>   >   > > > > > > some way - the difference is how we perceive and
define
>   >   these
>   >   > > > > things).
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > I will stick to my prediction that around 30%PA EOD
>   >   trading
>   >   > > is a
>   >   > > > > > > limit for indicators that use lookback periods and
that to
>   >   > > > > achieve
>   >   > > > > > > more than this requires a different approach (as I
say
>   >   you are
>   >   > > > > both
>   >   > > > > > > correct except I believe that Steve is talking
about >30%
>   >   PA
>   >   > > > > returns).
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > (Steve - care to confirm?)
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > brian_z
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%
>   >   40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
>   >   > > 40yahoogroups.com>, Yuki
>   >   > >
>   >   > > > > Taga <yukitaga@> wrote:
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Gee, then I guess I should give back my ~20
percent a
>   >   year
>   >   > > that
>   >   > > > > is
>   >   > > > > > > > largely based on short-term momentum swings,
yes? (I'm
>   >   > > sitting
>   >   > > > > plus
>   >   > > > > > > > 13 percent YTD this year already, as of yesterday,
>   >   versus -
>   >   > > 9.3
>   >   > > > > > > > percent for my Nikkei 225 benchmark.)
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > You do have to be agile however. And you cannot
overstay
>   >   > > your
>   >   > > > > > > > welcome. But the money is there for momentum
systems if
>   >   > > > > designed
>   >   > > > > > > > and tested properly.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > "Support" exists, but everyone knows where it is.
>   >   Exactly
>   >   > > > > where it
>   >   > > > > > > > is. And somebody (I'll leave it to you to guess
who) is
>   >   > > going
>   >   > > > > to
>   >   > > > > > > > ring the bell and tell you that (resistance
failed) or
>   >   > > (support
>   >   > > > > > > > failed). What are you going to do, then? You're
going to
>   >   > > stop
>   >   > > > > > > > yourself out of course. With a loser.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Which is likely to be more profitable, and for a
longer
>   >   > > period
>   >   > > > > of
>   >   > > > > > > > time? Systems that compel you to do the
psychologically
>   >   > > > > difficult,
>   >   > > > > > > > or systems that suggest that you do the patently
>   >   obvious?
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Is there anyone beyond 7th grade that doesn't
know where
>   >   > > > > support and
>   >   > > > > > > > resistance is? Are there great systems that rely on
>   >   widely
>   >   > > > > known
>   >   > > > > > > > community knowledge?
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Look for a system that has good metrics, but a
system
>   >   that
>   >   > > also
>   >   > > > > > > > suggests that what you need to do will be
>   >   psychologically
>   >   > > > > difficult
>   >   > > > > > > > for you to do, in spite of having back-tested
results
>   >   > > > > indicating
>   >   > > > > > > that
>   >   > > > > > > > you are foolish if you *don't* do it. Then you
are good
>   >   to
>   >   > > go,
>   >   > > > > as
>   >   > > > > > > > they say. Good to go as long as you do it, of
course.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > If your system is easy to follow (by that, I
mean that
>   >   it's
>   >   > > > > > > > psychologically easy for you to make the
trades), it's
>   >   > > probably
>   >   > > > > a
>   >   > > > > > > > loser. And vice-versa. The best systems have good
>   >   metrics,
>   >   > > yet
>   >   > > > > > > > despite that they almost defy the trader
>   >   (psychologically)
>   >   > > to
>   >   > > > > make
>   >   > > > > > > > the trades. There is no free lunch.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Yuki
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Thursday, May 8, 2008, 11:50:01 AM, you wrote:
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> Anthony,
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> Do yourself a big favor. Don't waste your
precious
>   >   time
>   >   > > on
>   >   > > > > this
>   >   > > > > > > > s> earth with this kind of drivel. Chasing price
with
>   >   > > > > momentum
>   >   > > > > > > > s> indicators is not going to get you where you
want to
>   >   be.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> Coming up with a support/resistance system is
all you
>   >   > > need
>   >   > > > > to
>   >   > > > > > > make
>   >   > > > > > > > s> whatever you want from the markets.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> I've seen hundreds of traders get wiped out
trying
>   >   to go
>   >   > > on
>   >   > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > path
>   >   > > > > > > > s> you're following and all of the successful
traders
>   >   I've
>   >   > > been
>   >   > > > > > > around
>   >   > > > > > > > s> in the e-mini futures have used S/R as the
>   >   foundation of
>   >   > > > > their
>   >   > > > > > > > s> trading methodology.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> And, above all, embrace your emotions in trading
>   >   because
>   >   > > > > they
>   >   > > > > > > teach
>   >   > > > > > > > s> you what you should and shouldn't do going
forward.
>   >   > > > > Computers
>   >   > > > > > > learn
>   >   > > > > > > > s> nothing while you learn from every win and
loss you
>   >   make.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> Finding an edge in trading is easy. It's only
hard if
>   >   > > > > you're
>   >   > > > > > > using a
>   >   > > > > > > > s> computer to find a needle in a haystack
because you
>   >   > > didn't
>   >   > > > > make
>   >   > > > > > > a
>   >   > > > > > > > s> good enough investment in real-time
observations of
>   >   the
>   >   > > > > markets
>   >   > > > > > > while
>   >   > > > > > > > s> researching an edge you'd like to trade..
That makes
>   >   all
>   >   > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > > s> difference in the world for knowing what
works and
>   >   what
>   >   > > > > doesn't.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> You'll come up with 10 edges to trade if you
put the
>   >   > > time in
>   >   > > > > to
>   >   > > > > > > > s> experience a live market on a regular basis
without
>   >   > > trying
>   >   > > > > so
>   >   > > > > > > hard.
>   >   > > > > > > > s> It will bring out your imagination and
creativity to
>   >   find
>   >   > > > > what
>   >   > > > > > > you're
>   >   > > > > > > > s> looking for.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> I wish someone had told me that 4.5 years ago
when I
>   >   > > started
>   >   > > > > > > trading
>   >   > > > > > > > s> the ER2 e-mini. It would have saved me a lot
of time
>   >   > > > > chasing
>   >   > > > > > > > s> nonsense.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > s> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<amibroker%
>   >   40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
>   >   > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
>   >   > >
>   >   > > > > "ihsaham" <ihsaham@> wrote:
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Hai Tomasz,
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> This is simple Jake Bernstein Momentum
Formula for
>   >   chart
>   >   > > and
>   >   > > > > > > > s> scanner.
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Please help me give arrow buy and sell. Buy
arrow is
>   >   > > Green
>   >   > > > > > > colour
>   >   > > > > > > > s> and
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Sell Arrow is Red Colour.
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> I really appreciate and thanks for you in
advance.
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Best Regards,
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Anthony Idic
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> _SECTION_BEGIN(" $ Momentum ");
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> /* Bernstein Momentum Indicator */
>   >   > > > > > > > >> /* Set Scaling to Automatic, Show dates On,
Percent
>   >   On,
>   >   > > > > Middle
>   >   > > > > > > On */
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Title = "Bernstein MOM Close - Ref(Close,-7)";
>   >   > > > > > > > >> GraphXSpace = 5;
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Graph0 = MA(Close - Ref(Close,-7),1);
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Graph0Style = 5;
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Graph0Color = 29;
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Graph1 = MA(Graph0,5);
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Graph1Style = 1;
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Graph1Color = 32;
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> DaysAgo =Optimize("DaysAgo",-28,-40,-16,4);
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Fast = Optimize("Fast", 1, 1,5,1);
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Slow = Optimize("Slow",28,16,40,4);
>   >   > > > > > > > >> /* Note: It is merely a coincidence that
DaysAgo and
>   >   Slow
>   >   > > > > use
>   >   > > > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > > >> same parameter set. */
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Buy = Cross( MA(Close - Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Fast),
>   >   > > > > > > > >> MA(Close - Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Slow) );
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Sell = Cross( MA(Close -
Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Slow),
>   >   > > > > > > > >> MA(Close - Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Fast) );
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Short = Cross( MA(Close -
Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Slow),
>   >   > > > > > > > >> MA(Close - Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Fast) );
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > > >> Cover = Cross( MA(Close -
Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Fast),
>   >   > > > > > > > >> MA(Close - Ref(Close,DaysAgo),Slow) );
>   >   > > > > > > > >> _SECTION_END();
>   >   > > > > > > > >>
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > > 
>   >   > >
>   >   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   ------------------------------------
>   >
>   >   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
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   --
>   >   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   >   Checked by AVG.
>   >   Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.11/1422 - Release Date:
>   5/8/2008 5:24 PM
>   >
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------------
>
>   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
>
>
>
>
>
>   --
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG.
>   Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.11/1422 - Release Date:
5/8/2008 5:24 PM
>



------------------------------------

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.14/1425 - Release Date: 5/9/2008 12:38 PM

__._,_.___

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




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___