|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Rick,
It's one of the components of one of our Intermediate Term Signals. Being
statisticians and mathematicians we tend to go overboard putting some of
these things together. I'm trying to convert our GGG program into MS and
have been working on it for about two weeks now (not full time as my 10 year
old doesn't get back to school until 9/11). GGG contains approximately 90
variables, which are created using our basic indicators in our short-term
system. We then boil these 90 variables down to provide us with a Buy or
Sell recommendation.
What this GGG program does is splits some of our IT (Intermediate Trend)
indicators into short term, medium term and long term indicators. Now GGG
is just one of four IT signals we use and is not the one of our bests (it's
simply the oldest). I'm trying to convert it into MS before moving on to
the next three (which we call 66R, SIG and 700). These IT signals get their
name from old works or works in progress. 66R is a revision of an old H66
program, for instance.
Regards,
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 Rick Lampkin
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 3:05 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Another calculation question
Guy,
Just wondering what formula,
COMHACR:= ( FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCRR") +
> FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCYY") + FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCY4") +
> FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCR4") + FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCR7") +
> COMHCY7 ) / 3;
> COMHACR;
is for?
Thanks
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Tann <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: Another calculation question
> Martin,
>
> I can't blame MS on this one. When I was moving stuff around, I made a
> typo. It was totally my fault. I had tested each component and it
worked.
> Then I moved stuff around and didn't retest everyone. I made a type using
> your CUM() technique (which is working fine, BTW).
>
> I did have some problems with MS and its precision but was able to work
> around that a long time ago (MS for DOS).
>
> 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 Martin Haesler
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 12:21 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Another calculation question
>
> Guy
>
> I'll pass on an area where I had a problem with Metastock's eod
> capabilities.
>
> When I created Don Fishers DGL indicator, I decided to use a date format
of
> YYYYMMDD.
>
> I then extracted the year and month by division.
>
> The remainder (after dividing by 1000000) should have been the "days" DD.
> However, this number turned out to be very unreliable indicating the
> accuracy of MS arithmetic was limited. When I changed the format to YYMMDD
> reducing the division to 10000 all worked well. This of course mean I had
> to allow for the year 2000 in a different way but that's another story.
>
> The point I wanted to bring home to you, is that you cannot assume that MS
> will calculate anywhere near accurately numbers to more than 6 significant
> digits.
>
> With your current situation, I would bring across each of your variables
> into a test indicator and plot it, verifying it is the value you expect.
> Then do your addition and go on from there.
>
> Regards ... Martin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Metastock User Group" <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 4:00 PM
> Subject: Another calculation question
>
>
> > All and Ton, Martin, et al:
> >
> > Well, I'm moving along with my programming thanks to Ton, Martin and all
> > other contributors, but I've reached an impasse trying to get to one of
my
> > more difficult calculations. I am debugging each one of my calculations
> and
> > plotting its individual result in MS and comparing it to a debugging
> program
> > I've written in Clipper. I feel that if I debug each individual
> > calculation, when I get to the end, everything should work.
> >
> > Well, that worked for while, until I reached the following calculation.
> > Something about the best laid plans of mice and men. :)
> >
> > COMHACR:= ( FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCRR") +
> > FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCYY") + FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCY4") +
> > FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCR4") + FmlVar("COMH-BASICS","COMHCR7") +
> > COMHCY7 ) / 3;
> > COMHACR;
> >
> > I have previously debugged COMHCRR, COMHCYY, COMHCY4, COMHCR4, COMHCR7,
> and
> > COMHCY7 and they all calculate properly and will plot if I set it up.
> This
> > calculation simply adds the six values and divides the total by 3.
> Nothing
> > sophisticated at all. I then moved this variable calculation to another
> > blank indicator to try it. It still didn't work, so I then tried to
> comment
> > out everything but one of the components and that didn't work either
> > (COMHCRR) but when I go back to that variable and set it up to plot, it
> > works fine. I'm terminally confused here.
> >
> > The only thing I can think is that I've exceeded MS programming
> > capabilities, but you would think I would at least get an error message.
> I
> > mean we're not talking brain surgery here, so I assume that I'm doing
> > something stupid. :) For instance, when I reached the point that I had
> > exceeded the calculations one indicator can support (something about
> binary
> > but I didn't write it down) I moved a bunch of the calculations to
another
> > indicator.
> >
> > Is there a limit on the number of indicators that you can program in MS?
> I
> > wouldn't think I'm near any limit, but??? I have a bunch of old
> > calculations and system testers out there. I hadn't planned on it, but
> > should I go out and delete them to make room for the newer stuff?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark,
> > professionals built the Titanic.
> >
> >
>
>
|