|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Alain:
This is an excellellent analysis of Bollinger Bands, standard deviations and
their significance.
My opinion of TA is close to yours, it is more of an art than a science.
What is frequently called science is really applied science (engineering).
I've met a few good scientists and one way or another they say that good
science is an art. TA provides an indication not a certainty.
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> Lionel,
>
> The type of distribution shape ain't the reason why Maas laws are
completely
> flawed. He's assuming first +/- 2 std is catching 100 % of the data, ie a
> first rule which is just plain wrong (and should enlighten this list once
> more Mr Maas is just a pretentious ignorant, kind of Staline science).
He's
> then assuming that since +/- 2 std is catching 100 %, then +/- 1.8 std is
> catching 90 %, ie a second rule which is again junk science. Not bad for a
> guy pretending TA is a science and not an art.
>
> Now about TA.
>
> That the prices are not exactly normally distributed is a fact all TA
> authors know since decades. John Bollinger also knew when he did introduce
> his bands... but, the normal hypothesis is shared by the vast majority of
TA
> litterature (books, web sites, software docs) when population statistics
> (percentage of price data within bands) are being associated with count of
> standard deviations (std).
> So, there are no many ways to answer the question of %-age vs std count
for
> Bollinger bands. Either you stick to the "convention" and 90 % of the data
> is +/- 1.645 std, the same +/- 2 std is 95 % of the data. Or you begin
> discussing again the real price distribution shape, and have to propose
that
> there ain't in fact any agreed single law to deduce %-age from std count
(or
> reversely). I took the option of providing a simple answer, based on a
> generally agreed and tacite hypothesis in the TA language.
>
> Another realty is John Bollinger's bands are volatility bands, and his
> entry/exit rules are in the same way based on volatility. What he says is
> that he found out standard deviation is the most suitable volatility
> measure. He could have used another one... and we would not speak today
> about %-ages figures he never (NEVER) considered himself [a fortiori use].
> The only he says about std count is it should adjusted based on the number
> of periods considered in the Bollinger bands (+/- 1.5 if 10, +/- 2 id 20,
> +/- 2.5 if 50 -- exact numbers to be confirmed).
>
> As it happens so often, one person introduced a concept... and the
universe
> added different interpretations and/or uses. Some people are always
looking
> for improvements... other just want to have something different to say.
>
> Greetings. Alain.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
>
>
> > Maas:
> > Since the distribution of stock prices is log-normal, your entire
> discussion
> > of standard deviations is flawed. Refer to Peter's book "Chaos and Order
> in
> > the Financial Markets..." for documentation of this.
> > Lionel Issen
> > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "A.J. Maas" <anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 9:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >
> >
> > > Are we here discussing the Kaufman's definition for his method in
> > calculating
> > > an everyday very common Standard Deviation value?
> > > Or anyone else's sd-calc methods?
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > Nope.
> > > We are discussing here the use of the Bollinger Bands (which bands
> already
> > > include the MSK Standard Deviation function in their formulas), that
> will
> > have
> > > to catch 90% of the Price, eg A.Torchio's original question:
> > > "Could anyone tell me the number of standard deviations
> allowing
> > to
> > > contain within the bands 90% of price data?"
> > >
> > > Find the answer using MSK and Bartjens:
> > >
> > > In MSK click "Help"|"Index"|"Bollinger bands:sample custom indicator:"
> > > for the bands-formula that catches 100% of the Price.
> > > Like said, the BBands already include StDev, thus no need to add more
or
> > > alter its function. What needs adjusting -lowering- is the times that
> the
> > function
> > > needs to be multiplied to have the bands come down to catch 90%
instead
> > > of the 100% it does at the moment. So, yet again unraffled:
> > >
> > > The CF Bollinger Bands
> > > -uses 2 times the StDev function for Upper band
> > > -uses 2 times the StDev function for Lower band
> > > ------------
> > > -totals 4 times the StDev function
> > > (for the bandwidth "to contain 100% of price data")
> > >
> > > Then in a CF to catch 90% of the Price is using this as follows:
> > >
> > > -uses 1.8 times the StDev function for Upper band
> > > -uses 1.8 times the StDev function for Lower band
> > > ------------
> > > -totals 3.6 times the StDev function
> > > (for the bandwidth now "to contain 90% of price data")
> > >
> > > and where the "3.6" then also equals to 90% of the original "4 devs"
> > ((4/100)*90).
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Whatever Kaufman then wants to use in and for his method {haven't
> checked
> > it}
> > > is -like your silly+stupid remarks- unimportant and irrelevant here.
> > >
> > > You can however check Kaufmans calculations by using Bartjens, but
note
> > that
> > > on the contrairy, Bartjens doesn't need a Kaufman to be right or to be
> > spot on, eg
> > > Batjens Law is always right.
> > >
> > > Like said, it's that is simple, but can be oh so difficult to
understand
> > for 8th grades
> > > or a belg.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ton Maas
> > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > > Van: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Verzonden: zaterdag 28 oktober 2000 8:57
> > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > " Trading Systems and Methods " - P. Kaufman, iow the reference in
TA
> > and
> > > > trading systems
> > > >
> > > > I provided the answer to a question you have not even understood
yet.
> Is
> > > > Bartjens free gift too ? [Kaufman ain't]
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> > > > To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 5:38 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Obviously has to be a belg............Bartjens goes beyond 8th
> grades.
> > > > >
> > > > > The formulas delivered in below mail ARE FOR USE IN METASTOCK !!
> > > > > Not in a chatbox.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are available to you, if you also do have a copy of
MetaStocK,
> > > > > which I strongly doubt you have.
> > > > > =============
> > > > >
> > > > > For other List members that are -now- truely concerned :
> > > > > They make use of the program's StDev(DataArray,Periods) function,
> that
> > > > > you can find in the MSK7x-manual p.264.
> > > > > See my other mail send tonight for more detailed info.
> > > > >
> > > > > And for the Jossarts, Jagows, Stevensons, Manascos and other here
> not
> > > > named
> > > > > brown marks among us, think twice before writing + posting
> > > > crap..................go by
> > > > > the facts, else you just don't stand the chance!!!
> > > > > Quality and prime trading + money earning stuff is what we're
after
> > here.
> > > > Offensive,
> > > > > even disgrading words, cannot and will not effect me, since you'll
> get
> > > > easy tackled
> > > > > on your silly writings and sending in your own nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Ton Maas
> > > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > > > > Van: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Verzonden: vrijdag 27 oktober 2000 13:50
> > > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Probability distribution tables :
> > > > > > - +/- 1 std = .3413 x 2 = .6826 = 68.3 %
> > > > > > - +/- 1.8 std = .4641 x 2 = .9282 = 92.3 %
> > > > > > - +/- 2 std = .4772 x 2 = .9544 = 95.4 %
> > > > > > - +/- 3 std = .4987 x 2 = .9974 = 99.7 %
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - 1.64 std = .4495 x 2 = .8990 = 89.9 % of the data
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > - 1.65 std = .4505 x 2 = .9010 = 90.1 % of the data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the answer to Alberto Torchio's question is : Bollinger (95%)
> is
> > +/-
> > > > 2
> > > > > > std, while 90 % is +/- 1.64... std
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What did you say ? en dus en dan, aah ja, zeker en vast...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> > > > > > To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 4:11 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The mean=middle=0
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > 100%=da width difference between "+1 stdev"{+100%} and "-1
> > > > stdev"{-100%}
> > > > > > > thus
> > > > > > > 100%{2*1}=2*stdev(da,pds) {width is then mean + 1*stdev up
> > +1*stdev
> > > > > > down}
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > 50%{2*0.5}=1*stdev(da,pds)
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > 90%{2*0.9}=1.8*stdev(da,pds)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Ton Maas
> > > > > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > > > > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > > > > > > Van: "Lionel Issen"
> > > > > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Verzonden: dinsdag 24 oktober 2000 4:23
> > > > > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cant find my statistics book, but I think its close to 2
std
> > dev.
> > > > > > > > Lionel Issen
> > > > > > > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Alberto Torchio" <atorchio@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > To: "Realtraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 2:27 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Listmembers,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have been asked a simple question on Bollinger Bands and
> was
> > > > unable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > answer...
> > > > > > > > > Could anyone tell me the number of standard deviations
> > allowing to
> > > > > > contain
> > > > > > > > > within the bands 90% of price data?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alberto Torchio
> > > > > > > > > Torino, Italy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|