|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To all</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I used this formula :</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>{ZeroLagEMA}<BR>{Peter Martin <A
href="mailto:alakazam@xxxxxxxxxxx";>alakazam@xxxxxxxxxxx</A>}<BR> Period:=
Input("What Period",1,250,3);<BR> EMA1:=
Mov(CLOSE,Period,E);<BR> EMA2:= Mov(EMA1,Period,E);<BR> Difference:=
EMA1 - EMA2;<BR> ZeroLagEMA:= EMA1 +
Difference;<BR> ZeroLagEMA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Result:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3><FONT color=#ff0000>EXAKTLY </FONT>the same as
MS-canned DEMA </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is something missing in the formula above
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>JMA is it something new ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do anybody have the formula for JMA ? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If it was posted here before I have thrown it away
, pleas repost it , I think it will bee of some intrest .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To Nicholas Kormanik (letter of 06-12) and Paula
(letter of 06-13) has anybody kome up with a explantion (formula) to the
Oscillator in the letter from Nicholas Kormanik ? Please lett me now
.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Have a nice mid summer to all</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards Bol</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: j seed <<A
href="mailto:jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx</A>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:44 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: Zero Lag EMA</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Lionel,<BR>> As I stated in my
earlier post...the ZLag Ema follows the close very <BR>> closely. For a 2nd
order MA I would say that's pretty good...little <BR>> lag(meaning it
reflects price slope farely well). However, if it doesn't do <BR>> what you
are looking for use something else. Try a plot of just the Close <BR>> and
the Zlag Ema and see how close they are.<BR>> <BR>> J.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> >From: "Lionel Issen" <<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>> >Reply-To: <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>>
>To: <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>>
>Subject: Re: Zero Lag EMA<BR>> >Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:49:02
-0500<BR>> ><BR>> >I was comparing the Zero Lag ema to three
different moving averages.<BR>> >simple, exponential, and time
series, and against macd, and price<BR>> >oscillator. The time series mov
gave the earliest signals, ema was next and<BR>> >sma was latest.<BR>>
>the macd gave good signals, and price oscillator gave good signals<BR>>
>regardless of type of mov average used The ZeroLag was not at all
close to<BR>> >the close. I used the time periods for the Zero Lag
EMA that were posted<BR>> >here, and I used cut and paste to copy the
indicator to Metastock.<BR>> ><BR>> >Time series mov used in the
price oscillator gave a ragged curve as <BR>> >compared<BR>> >with
ema mov's. Ema and simple mov's gave smoother curves.<BR>> ><BR>>
>Lionel Issen<BR>> ><A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A><BR>> >----- Original
Message -----<BR>> >From: j seed <<A
href="mailto:jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>> >To:
<<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:18 AM<BR>> >Subject: Re: Zero Lag
EMA<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > > LIONEL,<BR>> > > The
ZeroLag Ema plots very close to the close. When compared to a 3 day <BR>>
>MA<BR>> > > (S,E,orT), I do get a lot of oscillations but then so
does a simple plot<BR>> >of<BR>> > > the close. Exactly how were
you comparing the ZLag?<BR>> > > Try comparing the ZLag to a Hilbert
MA.<BR>> > > J.<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > >
>From: "Lionel Issen" <<A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>> > >
>Reply-To: <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>> >
> >To: <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>>
> > >Subject: Zero Lag EMA<BR>> > > >Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000
09:45:04 -0500<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > >Using the recently
posted formulations, my results with this indicator<BR>> >were<BR>>
> > >poor.<BR>> > > >I tried using S, E and T moving
averages. S & E gave almost identical<BR>> > > >graphs, and
signals were late. T produced a more oscillating curve than<BR>> > >
>either S or E and the signals were much later. None of these ZeroLag<BR>>
>curves<BR>> > > >plotted close enough to the price chart to be
useful. They did not<BR>> >resemble<BR>> > > >those I had seen
at Jurik's web site.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > >I get better
signals using other moving average based indicators, such <BR>>
>as<BR>> > > >macd.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > >
>Did I miss something?<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > >If anyone
has tried the ZeroLag indicator, what were your results?<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > >Lionel Issen<BR>> > > ><A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A><BR>> > > >-----
Original Message -----<BR>> > > >From: j seed <<A
href="mailto:jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>> >
> >To: <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>>
> > >Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 11:44 AM<BR>> > > >Subject:
Re: Zero Lag EMA<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > >
> > Sonny,<BR>> > > > > Here's the indicator. Just replace
the CLOSE with whatever you like.<BR>> >As<BR>> > >
>far<BR>> > > > > as displacing forward...find that answer and
you'll have worked a<BR>> > > >miracle.<BR>> > > >
><BR>> > > > > J.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> >
> > > {ZeroLagEMA}<BR>> > > > > {Peter Martin <A
href="mailto:alakazam@xxxxxxxxxxx";>alakazam@xxxxxxxxxxx</A>}<BR>> > >
> > Period:= Input("What Period",1,250,3);<BR>> > > > >
EMA1:= Mov(CLOSE,Period,E);<BR>> > > > > EMA2:=
Mov(EMA1,Period,E);<BR>> > > > > Difference:= EMA1 -
EMA2;<BR>> > > > > ZeroLagEMA:= EMA1 + Difference;<BR>> >
> > > ZeroLagEMA<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > >
><BR>> > > > > >From: <A
href="mailto:Sonnysark@xxxxxxx";>Sonnysark@xxxxxxx</A><BR>> > > >
> >Reply-To: <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>> >
> > > >To: <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>> >
> > > >Subject: Zero Lag EMA<BR>> > > > > >Date:
Fri, 19 May 2000 10:16:32 EDT<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > >
> > >The list talked about the use of Zero Lag EMA a couple of weeks
<BR>> >ago.<BR>> > > >The<BR>> > > > > >Zero
Lag EMA is set so it applies to the closing price only. Does<BR>> >
> >anyone<BR>> > > > > >know how I can adjust the
formula so the Zero Lag EMA can be <BR>> >applied<BR>> >to<BR>>
> > >the<BR>> > > > > >high and low or to get it to
displace forward? Thanks, -Sonny-<BR>> > > > ><BR>> >
> > ><BR>>
>________________________________________________________________________<BR>>
> > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at<BR>>
>http://www.hotmail.com<BR>> >
> > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > >
________________________________________________________________________<BR>>
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <A
href="http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</A><BR>> >
><BR>> ><BR>> <BR>>
________________________________________________________________________<BR>>
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <A
href="http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</A><BR>> <BR>>
</FONT></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Fri Jun 23 14:53:02 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20173
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:03:47 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20118
for metastock-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:47:00 -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 NAA20115
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:46:57 -0600
Received: from basecamp1.netquest.net (netquest.net [204.140.219.1])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11865
for <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:07:22 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from p400 (dsl0037.netquest.net [206.117.109.37]) by basecamp1.netquest.net (8.9.1/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA26391 for <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Metastock User Group" <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Looks like we're early
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:49:41 -0700
Message-ID: <NBBBKFMIMHJOLMGOIJGNEEEFEMAA.grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
List,
Well, we jumped right into this trade with our eyes wide shut. We've had
several that have really gone against us the first day and then turned
around. I would like to think that this is the case this time. OTOH, our
percent profitable trades are much higher than our historical average, so
this might be the loser that brings us back in line. Like when you start to
feel omnipotent someone always whacks you on the side of the head to get
your attention. :)
Anyway, we will be running our SP39 filter this weekend and I will build a
spreadsheet of the alternative portfolios with a report as to how they're
doing.
The ValueLine portfolio is down $13,500 at the present time (not counting
the options) and I think I'll take my son out for Fat Burgers (George
Forman's favorites).
JimG
Guy
Paranoia...you only have to be right once to make it all worthwhile!
|