|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Please explain in detail how to do this with Metastock.
I usually need instructions like the old Colonial recipe for roast turkey:
"first you go out and shoot a turkey".
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Taglavore" <altag@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Current Day! Re: Other programs
> SK>Constant bitching about
> > tired subjects does not serve this forum. Try posting a trading
> approach,
> > an interesting indicator or something that smacks of "value added".
>
> Thank you. I, too, have been wondering how much actual trading is going
> on. How can one be trading and write such lengthy pieces? I have lost
the
> ability to focus on anything during the trading day except the trade.
> Must be the a version of the "senior moment" syndrome.
>
> Anyone working with a MACD based on close and one of the same length
based
> on high applied in the same window with a Slope of 1/2 the MACD value all
> applied on 5 minute charts? Could be something interesting in a
profitable
> way.
>
> Al Taglavore
>
> Constant bitching about
> > tired subjects does not serve this forum. Try posting a trading
> approach,
> > an interesting indicator or something that smacks of "value added".
>
> ----------
> > From: Steve Karnish <kernish@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Current Day! Re: Other programs
> > Date: Friday, May 04, 2001 11:38 AM
> >
> > Lionel (et.al.),
> >
> > I have been using MetaStock for 15 years. FOR THE MONEY, it is the
BEST
> > value on the market (period, period, period)...
> >
> > I don't know if any of you "number crunchers" trade for a living. I do
> know
> > that last year I made over 1,000 trades and a few other contributors
> > (non-whiners) also logged over 1,000 actual trades. Somehow, we
survived
> > without the floating decimal point.
> >
> > I suggest that you vote with your dollars. Many people run both TS and
> MS
> > side by side (each has their features and benefits). Equis is probably
> at
> > least one or two years "down the road" in their future product releases.
> I
> > can assure you that many issues that are currently being discussed (and
> or
> > whined about) on the forum will "magically" show up as "fixes" in newer
> > versions. Will they cost, will Equis address your specific issue,
> > will............ Who knows?
> >
> > Meanwhile, for under $400, it still the meanest and leanest program
> around.
> > Please remember: I too have had many discussions with Equis about what
I
> > believe is important to include in future editions. Constant bitching
> about
> > tired subjects does not serve this forum. Try posting a trading
> approach,
> > an interesting indicator or something that smacks of "value added". If
I
> > wanted to monitor a bunch of whiners, I would still be on the Omega
group
> > forum.
> >
> > Have a good weekend,
> >
> > Steve Karnish, CTA
> > Cedar Creek Trading
> > http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: Current Day! Re: Other programs
> >
> >
> > > Neo:
> > > Look at Trader's tips in TASC for May 2001, then look at the web sites
> for
> > > the different pieces of software. I like the look of Wealth-Lab.com.
> It
> > has
> > > a powerful programming language which they describe as a subset of
> Pascal.
> > > There is a review on page 70 of Amibroker. Its cheap and looks
> > interesting.
> > >
> > > Last year Guy Tann made a very detailed and tedious examination of
> > > Metastock's stupid and incorrect number crunching. Ken Hunt dismissed
> his
> > > complaints and hasn't corrected them in the current version. Guy Tann
> is
> > not
> > > using Metastock anymore.
> > >
> > > Metastock has some good features, but its shortcomings are making me
> lose
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > I wonder how many former/existing users Equis lost with each new
> version?
> > >
> > > Lionel Issen
> > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:45 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Current Day! Re: Other programs
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lionel
> > > >
> > > > What are the other programs coming on the market?
> > > >
> > > > neo
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Lionel Issen
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:35 PM
> > > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken Hunt:
> > > > You have pressed my red button again. The can of worms exists and
the
> > > > problem should be corrected.
> > > >
> > > > You sound too much like a child that doesn't want to clean up his
> room.
> > > You
> > > > seem to forget that some of the users are very knowledgeable
> > programmers!
> > > >
> > > > Memory is cheap cheap cheap these days. Just look at prices on the
> > > internet
> > > > or call your local computer mega store. Additional memory
> requirements
> > is
> > > no
> > > > justification for your attitude. There are probably higher
management
> > > > decisions involved. It cost me a new computer when V 5.x came out:
it
> > > needed
> > > > a pentium as it wouldn't run properly on a 386. This was more
> > expensive
> > > > than additional memory, and Equis wasn't concerned about the cost to
> > > upgrade
> > > > to V 5.x, so please spare us this weak excuse about additional
> memory
> > > > requirements.
> > > >
> > > > There are other software packages coming on the market that provide
> the
> > > > capability that Equis is unwilling to put into Metastock.
> > > >
> > > > Just scrap the existing program and start from scratch and include a
> > > > programming language interface (VB, C++ , Delphi, or whatever).
> > > > Lionel Issen
> > > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "PD Manager" <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:58 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Current Day!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > At the risk of opening this can of worms again: you are correct in
> > your
> > > > > assumption. All numbers in MetaStock are stored as
> single-precision
> > > > > floating point numbers. With this type of floating point
> > > representation,
> > > > > the computer only guarantees 7 digits of precision. When you have
> a
> > > > number
> > > > > that exceeds this number of digits, any digits beyond the seventh
> are
> > > not
> > > > > guaranteed to be accurate. Any numbers that contain more digits
> than
> > 7
> > > > are
> > > > > only approximations.
> > > > >
> > > > > To restate from past discussions on the subject: In the future, we
> > could
> > > > > move to double precision numbers to get 15 digits of precision
(any
> > > digits
> > > > > beyond the 15th would be inaccurate), but this would more than
> double
> > > the
> > > > > memory requirements of the program. The additional memory
> > requirements
> > > of
> > > > > this approach is why the decision to make this change has not been
> > made
> > > up
> > > > > to this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken Hunt
> > > > > Programming Manager
> > > > > Equis International
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John R [mailto:jrdrp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:52 PM
> > > > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would guess this problem is caused by the underlying floating
> point
> > > > > representation MS probably uses for numeric variables. i.e. losing
> > > > accuracy
> > > > > at the extreme limits of range.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of using full century why not try using just 2 digits i.e.
> 00,
> > > 01,
> > > > > 99. Or if year collating order is reqd. 3 digits i.e. 098 (for
> 1998)
> > 099
> > > > > (for 1999) 100 (for 2000) 101 (for 2001) etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Haven't checked any of this!
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "C.S." <csaxe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:38 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I tried the equation backwards to see if DDMMYYYY would work.
> > > > >
> > > > > DOM:=DayOfMonth();
> > > > > MON:=Month();
> > > > > YR:=Year();
> > > > > YR+(MON*10000)+(DOM*1000000)
> > > > >
> > > > > It works for the first day but not for the days at the end of the
> > month.
> > > > > for 4/30/2001 I get 30042000 and not 30042001.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Corey
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Steve Brann
> > > > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:36 AM
> > > > > Subject: RE: Current Day!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi L
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. Version 7.02 end of day version.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am also getting results such as 20001032 (Oct 32nd, 2000) when
> I
> > > > should
> > > > > be getting 20001101 (Nov 1st,2000). Interesting eh?
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Lionel Issen
> > > > > Sent: 02 May 2001 14:52
> > > > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: Current Day!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve:
> > > > > This is an excellent concise method.
> > > > >
> > > > > What version are you using?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lionel Issen
> > > > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Steve Brann
> > > > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:05 AM
> > > > > Subject: Current Day!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > I use the following in my explorations to denote the date of
> the
> > > > last
> > > > > price data in the format yyyymmdd;
> > > > >
> > > > > DayOfMonth()+(Month()*100)+(Year()*10000)
> > > > >
> > > > > However, this fails if the date is the first of the month
> such
> > as
> > > > > March 1st 2001, instead of getting 20010301 I get 20010300!
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone else experienced this and if so is there a
> solution?
> > > By
> > > > > the way, using DayOfMonth() on its own produces 01.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
|