|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Ed,
After all the incendiary mails that were bandied about here in the last
couple of weeks I was really enjoyed to read a number of light-hearted
comments on pattern recognition along with the merits of grey vs. silicon
matter. And as a light heart makes for light work, it's with pleasure
that I return to our 'bone of contention': Cups &
Handles.
I've read the Easy Language file you posted, and I'm sorry to say that
here once again we have evidence of the inherent superiority of EL over
MetaStock's language:
1. The number of parentheses required to represent the diverse and nested
if-conditions would be mind boggling, and certain to cause illegible
and/or faulty code (remember LISP?).
2. A count of 18 variables is close to the (incomprehensible) upper limit
for MS.
3. The looping construct starting at line 23 cannot be translated
at all because there's no such animal in MS.
Other participants of this list have at times found work-arounds for this
kind of problems but for my part I beg to desist. When (and especially
IF) Equis will have implemented the long promised
VBA for MetaStock things will be
different - Hey guys, are you listnin'?
A short search at Yahoo.com for "cup & handle" turned up a
surprising number of references (I'll list some of them below). Leafing
through I made some revealing observations:
1. There seems to be no agreement on what exactly constitutes a cup,
either with or without handle. In Germany btw. some people talk about
"saucers" instead (which makes me wonder where to attach a
handle).
2. The C&H apperantly lies "at the heart of the CANSLIM"
method (system?). Probably this is the cause that so
3. Many expert (sic) commentators seem to find C&Hs everywhere.
Selloffs, double bottoms, inverted head & shoulders... all and sundry
kinds of reversal are declared to be a C&H formation.
Seems to me that first of all a workable (that is, quantifiable)
definition of C&H has to be arrived at. The only site where that's
attempted (besides your EL-code, Ed) is
http://www.maui.net/~haikulab/mh.htm
However, maybe precisely because of their defining terms, the authors
require that a run up must take place before the pattern can
develop. Although their parameters appear to be amenable to formulation
in MS I'm afraid his requirement invalidates their whole approach.
What do you think, can we agree on my initial 'definition' of C&H as
a rounding bottom with a pull-back to the rim? If I remember rightly from
one of my early textbooks on patterns the rounding bottom occurs very
rarely; however when it does, it gives a highly reliable buy signal, all
the more so if a handle forms (volume is important - as with all
patterns). This being the case, developing a workable filter for C&Hs
might be a quite rewarding, that is renumerative, pursuit.
Kind regards & happy trading,
Jan Willem
Some pages with C&H texts/hype:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cupandhandle.asp
http://daytrading.about.com/money/daytrading/library/weekly/aa032299.htm
http://www.news.bridge.com/NEWS/gfiv42.html
http://store.traders.com/traderscom/-v13-c07-trading-pdf.html
http://www.investors.com/learn/ICtech02.asp
And don't forget to visit:
http://www.ragbone.com/shop/catalogue/pteacup931ct.html
;-)
At 10:44 05.10.2000 +0800, you wrote:
Hi guys, attached is a word file containing the easy language formula for C&H. I would be grateful if any one of you could translate that into metastock format. Thank you in advance.
Ed
|