|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
James,
We have our "old" system that we have been trading and this was the signal
we used to execute our S&P sells.
We are also testing a couple of newer Intermediate Term Signals and working
on integrating them into our trading rules. This is a transitional period
for us, and it may take six months or longer for us to make a change of this
type. This "confirming sell" was on the newer ITS. If we had traded it
instead of our older signal, we would have had a slightly better fill (I
think we would have been short at 1515 rather than 1497.25 (actually the
large S&P futures are at 1497.25 while the e-minis are from 1496-1497).
Right now, we are trading whichever signal comes first.
We don't like to rush these changes to our trading rules as it's too easy to
make changes based upon today's market (sort of like optimizing to the
current market) and it's important to us that any revised rules work over a
longer period. We'll take a few more risks during these transitional
periods and if we get a strong market move up intraday, we'll probably add
some more shorts.
Hope this explanation helps.
Guy
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark,
professionals built the Titanic.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of James Palmer
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 2:58 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Precision and MS calculations
Guy, what do you mean by a confirming sell? Is it when you already have a
position on and you get a reinforcing signal on a different time frame?
James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 12:36 AM
Subject: RE: Precision and MS calculations
> Steve,
>
> I forgot to add that we just got a confirming Sell for Friday morning.
> Maybe this trade will make us a few dollars yet. :)
>
> Guy
>
> Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark,
> professionals built the Titanic.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Steve Karnish
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 6:04 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Precision and MS calculations
>
> Guy,
>
> Too much Stroth's beer at an early age.
>
> Steve Karnish
> Cedar Creek Trading
> http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Guy Tann <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Metastock User Group <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 9:11 PM
> Subject: Precision and MS calculations
>
>
> > List,
> >
> > Well I gave up and went back to square one. I couldn't figure out how a
> > variable could calculate correctly from 12/11/99 to 8/9/00 and then fail
> the
> > next day and then work correctly again. First I wrote 7 Clipper
programs
> > which I used to print out each variable. I checked my MS calculations
for
> > each variable against these printouts. The first 8 variables calculated
> > correctly.
> >
> > The ninth variable didn't! What was weird was that every day calculated
> > correctly until the 2nd day from the end. I double-checked the inputs
and
> > they were in complete agreement (I exported my MS data into Clipper to
> > insure both systems that were using the same data). I then went back
and
> > double-checked each value that was part of this calculation. One of my
> > variables was off slightly for one of these days. I went back and
recoded
> > my MS code and broke the calculation into 6 steps to equal the code in
the
> > Clipper program. So now I have identical code in both modules and you
> would
> > think that the results would be identical. Wrong, buckwheat!
> >
> > For the life of me, I'm at a loss. It's probably something to do with
MS
> > and precision, but in this case, following rounding, I use Int() to
> capture
> > only the whole number and drop any fractions. If anyone has a
suggestion,
> > I'm open to it. Our numbers are too sensitive to not be able to trust
the
> > results of a simple calculation. If this was a complex calculation, I
> might
> > possibly understand a variance. In this case the correct answer is -3
> (and
> > yes, I did calculate it manually to make sure) while MS came up with -2.
> > I think I'm going to take a day off and clear my head. This is why I
get
> so
> > frustrated trying to use MS. How could a program calculate correctly
for
> > 99.994% of the time and then blow it on that one day?
> > Tomorrow, I'm planning on printing out the intermediate results from
both
> > Clipper and MS to see if I can see where this thing is going wrong. I'm
> too
> > tired tonight.
> >
> > I need a break. Where did I put that beer?
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark,
> > professionals built the Titanic.
> >
>
>
>
|