|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Before putting this topic to bed let me make several comments.
>>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. <<
I consider OB/OS, price targets, time targets, EWT, et al to all be
regression to the mean type of indicators. While they are measures of
the same thing, they are independent of each other and can be used in
combination for improved results.
Since I gave my opinion of price level indicators, let me do the same
for momentum indicators. I have 2 problems with them. They are digital
filters and suffer their short comings. They are lagging which means
they generate signals late and most have fixed look back periods so
they are tuned to particular frequencies (market cycles). When they
are in tune with a dominant market cycle, they work well; otherwise,
they don't work so well.
I don't need momentum indicators, I can see momentum changes directly
on the price charts without any lag. I don't need to worry about look
back periods, my mind seems to key in on the dominant cycle on the
chart without me thinking about it. I just knew all that screen time
would pay off <g>.
There are things I cannot see directly on price charts. For example,
statistical things like Std Error Bands. I also need a consistant
point of reference to gauge trend strength because of the variations
in chart scales (this is the biggest problem with a lot of Gann's stuff).
>>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.<<
For the most part Tucker does not say you cannot trade successfully
with the things he criticizes. In fact he points out that even a
random line drawn on a chart has value as a point of reference. With
today's low commissions, good trade management and good money
management almost anything can be traded successfully but why make
things hard on yourself by using indicators with known short comings
when you don't have to?
Bill
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "wavemechanic" <timesarrow@xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
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/
|