|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3509.100"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT size=2> You
got it about right. The highest high value test is just a test to see if
the short, intermediate, and long term highs and lows have occurred
lately. If it did that means you have had higher highs and higher lows for
each of the time frames. The LLV is just the mirror image and shows that
the you have lower lows and lower highs for all the time frames if they meet
that test. I started instinctively by giving the shorter term less weight,
intermediate more, and longer most by using 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The
test will get much more complicated then a simple zero cross over before I'm
through, but the zero cross over test is good enough to test the sensitivity of
the weightings. After running tests on several of my stocks, I was
surprised to find that it worked better on average for more weight on the short
and intermediate term and less on the long term. Therefore, my final
weight values will be 2, 2, and 1 respectively instead of 1, 2, and 3.
I've played with the other formulas and found the same relationship. I'll
try to get time to post the results this week end and start to build the final
test.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Jim </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>John Hunter <<A
href="mailto:jhunter@xxxxxxxxxx";>jhunter@xxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Wednesday, September 23, 1998 9:37 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: PV Binary
Wave System Test<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Jim,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>As always you have come
up with a system that tests the rest of us just to stay up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>My simple attempt to understand what you are
doing with this function follows. Perhaps it will help someone else
understand it as well. If I am wrong then I guess I will be
told.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The first statement asks whether or not the highest high
value of the low for the past 21 days occurred in the last 8 days. If it did
then the function goes up by two, if not then zero. <FONT size=2>The next
statement asks whether or not the highest high value of the low for the past
55 days occurred in the last 21 days. Again if yes then add two, if no then
zero. The reasoning is similar for the next four
statements.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As an example, if the highest high value for the low and
the high for the past year (almost) occurred say in the last week then a
value of 10 would be returned for the first half of the function. This would
indicate that at least the resistance line has an upward slope.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The next six statements look at the reverse situation. If
the lowest low value for the high and low occurred in the past week then a
value of minus 10 is returned. This would indicate that at least the support
line has a downward slope.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If both conditions occurred in the past week then that
would be very interesting indeed! Leaving that aside, for the function to
return a positive result the hhv part of the expression has to be greater
than the llv part and vice versa. You have a simple enter long when the
expression returns a positive value with the converse also applying. It cant
be that simple.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Anyway now that I have eye-balled the expression (and
provided that my explanation above doesn't suffer too much) I will set about
to "fiddle with this thing over the weekend and report back next
week.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>JH</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original
Message-----</B><BR><B>From: </B>Jim Greening <<A
href="mailto:JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To:
</B>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Monday, 14 September 1998 3:01<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: PV Binary Wave
System Test<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> Just read my post and see
that I made a mistake. I copied the wrong formula to the Enter
Short system test. Obviously the weightings should be opt1, opt2,
opt3 instead of 1, 2, 3 and -opt1, -opt2, -opt3 instead of -1, -2,
-3. Sorry about that <G>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Jim </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original
Message-----</B><BR><B>From: </B>Jim Greening <<A
href="mailto:JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To:
</B>Metastock <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:30 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>PV Binary
Wave System Test<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2> I wanted
everyone to know that I hadn't forgotten the development of the
Price Volume Binary Wave. I've just been very busy and haven't
had much time for it. For one thing our first grandson (to go
with our two granddaughters) was born a couple of months ago.
They live about an hours drive North of us and needless to say, we
have been making that short trip often <G>. Anyway, back
to business. I combined the first two PVBW formulas into the
following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>PVBW01 (Highs &
Lows)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>If(HHV(L,8) = HHV(L,21),2,0)
+<BR> If(HHV(L,21) = HHV(L,55),2,0) +<BR> If(HHV(L,55) =
HHV(L,233),1,0) +<BR> If(HHV(H,8) = HHV(H,21),2,0)
+<BR> If(HHV(H,21) = HHV(H,55),2,0)
+<BR> If(HHV(H,55) = HHV(H,233),1,0)
+<BR>If(LLV(H,8) = LLV(H,21),-2,0) +<BR> If(LLV(H,21) =
LLV(H,55),-2,0) +<BR> If(LLV(H,55) = LLV(H,233),-1,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(L,8) = LLV(L,21),-2,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(L,21) = LLV(L,55),-2,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(L,55) = LLV(L,233),-1,0)
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Note that all I did was add the first two formulas
together and changed the weighting. The reason I changed the
weighting was that I copied the formula into the following simple MS
System Test and tested it on several of my
stocks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>05B_Tema PV BW</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> Enter Long</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If(HHV(L,8) = HHV(L,21),opt1,0)
+<BR> If(HHV(L,21) = HHV(L,55),opt2,0) +<BR> If(HHV(L,55)
= HHV(L,233),opt3,0) +<BR> If(HHV(H,8) =
HHV(H,21),opt1,0) +<BR> If(HHV(H,21) =
HHV(H,55),opt2,0) +<BR> If(HHV(H,55) =
HHV(H,233),opt3,0) +<BR>If(LLV(H,8) = LLV(H,21),-opt1,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(H,21) = LLV(H,55),-opt2,0) +<BR>
If(LLV(H,55) = LLV(H,233),-opt3,0) +<BR> If(LLV(L,8) =
LLV(L,21),-opt1,0) +<BR> If(LLV(L,21) =
LLV(L,55),-opt2,0) +<BR> If(LLV(L,55) =
LLV(L,233),-opt3,0) > 0</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT color=#000000 size=2> Enter
Short</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>If(HHV(L,8) =
HHV(L,21),1,0) +<BR> If(HHV(L,21) = HHV(L,55),2,0) +<BR>
If(HHV(L,55) = HHV(L,233),3,0) +<BR> If(HHV(H,8) =
HHV(H,21),1,0) +<BR> If(HHV(H,21) = HHV(H,55),2,0)
+<BR> If(HHV(H,55) = HHV(H,233),3,0)
+<BR>If(LLV(H,8) = LLV(H,21),-1,0) +<BR> If(LLV(H,21) =
LLV(H,55),-2,0) +<BR> If(LLV(H,55) = LLV(H,233),-3,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(L,8) = LLV(L,21),-1,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(L,21) = LLV(L,55),-2,0)
+<BR> If(LLV(L,55) = LLV(L,233),-3,0) <
0</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>OPT1: Min = 1 Max = 3 Step =
1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>OPT2: Min = 1 Max
= 3 Step = 1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>OPT2: Min = 1 Max
= 3 Step = 1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I ran the test
on several of my stocks and was surprised by two things.
First, that just this simple test worked very well on most of my
stocks. Second and more important, that I had assigned my
original weighting wrong where I gave progressively more weight to
the longer term results. On average the tests performed better
with more weight to the short and intermediate term and less weight
to the long term. Therefore I changed my weighting from 1, 2,
3 to 2, 2, 1. I intend to do the same thing with the rest of
the PVBW formulas that I forwarded a few weeks ago and then look for
the optimum smoothing. Finally, I'll work on the test itself
and add some close conditions and vary the Enter long
conditions. I hope to be able to report back on the binary
wave components by next week and then proceed from
there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> If anyone wants to
experiment and let me know the results or has ideas for other
components please let me know. Remember, I don't want to use
any indicators for this binary wave, only price/volume
relationships.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Jim</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Wed Sep 23 20:46:12 1998
Received: from 204.246.137.2 (204.246.137.2)
by mail05.rapidsite.net (RS ver 0.3) with SMTP id 15125
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 20:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA19860
for metastock-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:19:05 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA19851
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:19:00 -0600
Received: from smtp.email.msn.com ([207.68.143.177])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15619
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:22:16 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from user - 153.37.103.101 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:13:10 -0700
Message-ID: <007701bde748$d8bf01e0$65672599@xxxx>
From: "Jim Greening" <JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Greenspeak
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:17:06 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Bill,
After the fact, I think you're wrong <G>.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Saxon <bsaxon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: EMail Fasttrack <fasttrack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; EMail List Metastock
<metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 10:02 AM
Subject: Greenspeak
>Apparently the market thinks Greenspan will weasel around and
innuendo
>a rate cut in the near future when he speaks to Congress today. My
>experience is that the market usually goes down when he opens his
>mouth. I think today will be no exception. All of the major Indices
>are at or near heavy overhead resistance. It seems the odds favor a
>bounce off and another leg down (# 5?). Any comments?
>
|