|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi David,
> ...Apparently we can't send pictures over this mail server ...
Why not? We used to. Especially, if it's in gif format, not bloated bmp as
MetaStock suggests (anything less than 100K never produced any
complaints on the List).
Also, while I do appreciate the idea of eliminating "market gyrations from
the equation", I don't quite get what you are after with this approach? Do
you look for "following market" stock, or just opposite? One way or another,
profit/loss will eventually be determined by a "sum" of the market and the
stock actions. Please, expand a bit. And again, illustrating your points
would help greatly.
Thanks.
Vitaly
----- Original Message -----
From: "David DeFina" <ddefina@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday December 29 2000 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: TC2000 Relative Strength Moving Average
> Tom, using the Nasdaq slows down the response time and gets you out later,
> and in later. Like you say, when the two coincide exactly the moving
> averages converge much slower. So using the Nasdaq appears to give
sup-par
> results vs. the S&P or DJ-30. I don't think TC2000 is pushing one index
> over the other any more, but can't be positive. I would never use this
> indicator by itself, but to me its superior to traditional moving
averages.
> Apparently we can't send pictures over this mail server, but it's amazing
to
> see the side by side comparison of the relative strength averages to
> traditional moving averages; far fewer false alarms but with good
entry/exit
> points.
>
> Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Tom Sprunger
> Sent: Dec 28, 2000 4:00 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: TC2000 Relative Strength Moving Average
>
> David, what would have been the result if you had used the Nasdaq as the
> reference instead of the S&P? At one time Worden was pushing the use of
> the Nasdaq as the reference. Which index is he pushing now?
>
> Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David DeFina" <ddefina@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:00 PM
> Subject: RE: TC2000 Relative Strength Moving Average
>
>
> > RE: How does your testing work for the April 2000 Nasdaq drop and the
> > Sept-Nov
> > Nasdaq drop?
> >
> > Tom, I tested from September 1999 to present, and it avoided both the
> March
> > and September plunges almost entirely. I believe since the stocks I
> tested
> > were on the Nasdaq, they quickly under performed the S & P index during
> the
> > plunges, which caused the moving averages to cross soon after the drop
> > began. It was primarily these two events this year that caused me to be
> > impressed by this indicator set-up.
> >
> > This isn't a recent example, but I'm at the office. The top section has
> the
> > traditional moving averages (10 and 30 exponential) based on the stock
> > price. The bottom section uses the same moving averages, but their
based
> on
> > IBM's relative strength to the S&P 500. You can see the primary
> difference
> > in February - April 1999 where the stock whipsaws up and down, causing
bad
> > signals in the conventional moving averages. The bottom window shows
the
> > 10-day moving average coming and barely touching the 30-day moving
> average,
> > eliminating some of the noise.
> >
> > I've always hated moving averages because they lose all the money you
made
> > with them when a stock consolidates. This indicator comes closer to
> solving
> > that problem in my mind. It is also just as good or better at
signaling
> > changes in trends.
> >
> > I'll send current examples tomorrow.
> >
> > ddefina@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > Behalf Of Tom Sprunger
> > Sent: Dec 28, 2000 10:35 AM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: TC2000 Relative Strength Moving Average
> >
> > I experimented with this and found a serious limitation in my opinion.
> > Since its based upon the stock's price performance relative to an index,
> it
> > fails when the stock and the index are moving in the same direction at
> about
> > the same rate. I.E., if the Nasdaq is in free fall and the stock is
> falling
> > at about the same rate, this approach may show that all is o.k., when in
> > reality you are losing your behind.
> >
> > I think it may work o.k in an exploration, but may fail applied to a
> > specific portfolio that you may already have under conditions like
> described
> > above..
> >
> > How does your testing work for the April 2000 Nasdaq drop and the
> Sept-Nov
> > Nasdaq drop?
> >
> > Tom
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David DeFina" <ddefina@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:26 AM
> > Subject: TC2000 Relative Strength Moving Average
> >
> >
> > > Anybody tried using TC2000's new moving average based on relative
> strength
> > > in Metastock?
> > >
> > > I developed a good indicator to identify trends in stocks, but
TC2000's
> > idea
> > > of using a 10 and 30 day moving average of relative strength (vs.
SP500,
> > > NASDAQ, etc.), works as well or better than mine. Using moving
> averages
> > > based on the stocks relative strength to a broader market average
> > eliminates
> > > market gyrations from the equation and allows the moving averages to
be
> > > sensitive only to stock performance relative to the index. I
programmed
> > > this into Metastock by plotting a relative strength indicator in white
> > > (making it invisible on white background), and created 2 moving
averages
> > > based on this indicator (10 and 30 exponential). When the 10-day
> crosses
> > > above the 30 day, this is assumed to be bullish, and you look to be
> > bearish
> > > when it crosses back below the 30-day line. Obviously, the two moving
> > > averages can be any number, but these seem to work well.
> > >
> > > I tested this setup on many Nasdaq stocks by programming an expert
with
> my
> > > indicators (not TC2000) and comparing the trend changes to mine
> visually,
> > > and saw that they were very similar. My system is very accurate for
> > finding
> > > trends, and entry points, so I'm assuming this TC2000 setup is as
> > reliable.
> > > I haven't found a way yet to program relative strength into a system
> test,
> > > so if anybody knows how I'd appreciate learning the secret. I used
the
> > > SP-500 as the comparison to Nasdaq stocks because it correlates well
> with
> > > the Nasdaq, but isn't as volatile.
> > >
> > > My trading system only uses the trend as one piece and several other
> > > indicators for entry and exit, but I believe this indicator is as
close
> to
> > > perfect for determining trends as you'll find.
> > >
> > > Dave D.
> > >
> >
>
>
|