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

Re: B&B Fear Alert



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

If anyone has a digital copy of the B&B Fear article from TASC I would
appreciate it.  I have every article from 12/97 back and from 10/98 forward
but I am missing the issue that this article is in.

Mark Thompson
mst1@xxxxxxxxx


----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff <jcob3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: B&B Fear Alert


> Hi Bob:
>
> I have talked about this in a previous post, but don't mind saying it
again.
> I found in testing the system that longer periods, generally, gave better
> results than the 12 periods given in the article.   Correspondence with
the
> author of the article confirmed this observation.  I do optimize, being
> fully aware of the arguements against over optimization, the period.  I
> believe this is reasonable as different equities have varying
periodicities.
> For instance the period I use for CMGI is 44 days.  I never found any
value
> in the POBC except that it sort of paints a picture of where the price is
in
> relation to the fear levels.  However, the system is based solely on price
> action with confirmation from the Directional movement indicator.
>
> GT
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Lambert <lambertb1@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: B&B Fear Alert
>
>
> >
> >
> >--- Jeff <jcob3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Oops.  Correct that CMGI price to 102.50.  For some
> >> reason, this date isn't reported through Reuter's
> >> yet.
> >>
> >> GT
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> Jeff:
> >
> >Maybe you posted it and I missed it, but are you using
> >12 periods to calculate B&B Fear?
> >
> >Also, are you using the "Point of Balance" Osc
> >mentioned in the original article in any manner?
> >
> >I think there was another technique mentioned in that
> >article called "four bar fear"(?)
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Bob
>
>
>