|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
David,
Single stocks are much easier to trade than futures. You have many, many
more choices...leading to great diversification. Nothing beats being able
to spread your money into ten or twenty piles (pretty tough with futures).
Designing an approach to the markets is not nearly as difficult as
implementing sound money management principles. I've found that the best
way to do that is to diversify.
I am also a bit confused about: "What I found to very good with AIQ was
being able to test a system over a
number of markets (this is another area which has improved) e.g does it
trade grains as well as it trades Oils. "
I trade with exactly the same indicator for crude, wheat, AMAT, MER, etc.
(all using MS as the platform). Don't get me wrong, MS has tremendous
shortcomings in the testing arena. These are issues that will probably
never be resolved.
The most attractive product that I've ever seen is the new Single Stock
Futures contracts. What a dandy hybrid. I can't wait for the products to
arrive. Since, you only trade futures, you might find that you will end up
back where you started.
Take care,
Steve
www.cedarcreektrading.com
----- Original Message -----
From: David Jennings <DavidJennings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: AIQ
> Firstly, no association with AIQ or MyTrack etc etc.
>
> I'm assuming your experience was with AIQ version 5x. Frankly I've not
used
> AIQ for the last 2/3 months as I've stopped trading single stocks
> completely. (I just don't enjoy it as I used to and far prefer futures).
So
> whether one likes AIQ or not depends on a couple of things. Let us be
quite
> clear, charting in AIQ is still not as good as MetaStock and even further
> behind Ensign. It does now have Fib Gann etc etc and the tools for
building
> Real time tools have improved.
>
> However, where it does score is its ability to give a grasp of the Market.
> Its language is quirky in some ways. Its built on list processing so in
> principle every statement executes at one and the same moment. Once one
has
> made that change in programming style then most things are codeable.
>
> What I found to very good with AIQ was being able to test a system over a
> number of markets (this is another area which has improved) e.g does it
> trade grains as well as it trades Oils. Furthermore, gaining a perspective
> of a stock within a sector or market and gain a grasp of sector
performance
> across countries e.g. comparing semi-conductor market.is something I've
not
> seen in Amibroker or MetaStock - perhaps I should read the manual.
>
> Lets take an example of a real world trading "system" I built. Some time
> ago Steve Karnish posted a view on stocks showing bullish/bearish
> candlesticks. So, I bought the book and studied Candlesticks. So I wrote
for
> code candlestick recognition (some of which comes with AIQ) together with
> code to recognise that the stock had been recently sold off and combined
> this with AIQ's features (which I personally find the whole sector
reporting
> suite to be exceptional) for money movement in and out of the sector in
> which the stocks trade). So, if the stock had recently sold off, formed a
> Hanging man (say) and money was moving into the sector, then the stock was
a
> buy.
>
> This code is then auto run overnight when the EOD data arrives and hey
> presto, I have a set of reasonably confident purchases. It worked well and
> was run successfully over a significant number of trades.
>
> If you are thinking of a change, then it's worth a second look - it's a
free
> option.
>
> DJ.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "neo" <neo1@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:14 AM
> Subject: AIQ
>
>
> > I last tried AIQ about 1-2 years ago. I was not impressed compared to
> > MetaStock.
> >
> > Has it changed a great deal?
> >
> > neo
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Jennings
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:06 PM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Power Basic programming-metastock
> >
> >
> > This quote from their site seems to be the crux of the issue "instant
> > viewing of daily/weekly/montly charts in line, bar or candlestick styles
> > overlaid with configurable moving averages, Bollinger bands, Volume
chart,
> > SAR, etc" i.e. not intraday.Unlike MetaStock AIQ Ensign & TradeStation!
> When
> > did you last use AIQ?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John R" <jrdrp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Power Basic programming-metastock
> >
> >
> > > I have Metastock, AIQ, Amibroker and quite a few other TA and testing
> > > tools - each of which I use for their own particular strength. I have
> > > considerable experience in commercial systems and software development
> so
> > > this may colour my view somewhat but IMO Amibroker is already *by far
> and
> > > away* the best designed and most competent all round TA tool - it also
> has
> > > the best technical support and an excellent user group.
> > >
> > > MS has good charting and allows quick "visual" testing of ideas but
for
> > > trading system development and testing it is useless IMO. MS has been
a
> > > product going nowhere for a good while now and I see no evidence this
is
> > > going to change.
> > >
> > > AIQ has some convenient data organisation and analysis features but
weak
> > > system testing and restrictive/quirky EDS rule-based formula language
> make
> > > it unsuitable for developing anything other than fairly simple
systems.
> > >
> > > Once Amibroker charting is enhanced (scheduled later this year) I
> > anticipate
> > > being able to use it as my sole TA program. To any frustrated MS users
> out
> > > there I would say get Amibroker now - you will not be disappointed.
> There
> > is
> > > a bit more to learn but this should be expected as it offers has far
> more
> > > capabilities than MS. The syntax of the Amibroker formula language is
> very
> > > similar to the MS formula language so the programming transition is
> quite
> > > straightforward.
> > >
> > > John
> > > (No association with Amibroker other than very satisfied user).
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "CS" <csaxe@xxxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:11 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Power Basic programming-metastock
> > >
> > >
> > > > Same here.
> > > > Frankly, I wish MS would simply fix the bugs that have been noted a
> year
> > > > ago. When bugs are found in AmiBroker they are fixed in about 72
hours
> > > which
> > > > are easily downloaded and patched from a web site. Try that in MS.
> > > > It would be nice to stay with MS since I had bought into the program
> at
> > > 6.5
> > > > and spent so much time developing indicators and systems, but my
> desire
> > to
> > > > evolve into dynamic/adaptive systems meant that I need to move on.
If
> > > pretty
> > > > charts and basic indicators is your limit, stay with MS. I waited
long
> > > > enough and it was time to take the training wheels off. You'd be
> > surprised
> > > > how many familiar names decided the same thing.
> > > > Do expect to exert more effort into programming because it does
more.
> > And
> > > > because it does more, there are more possibilities.
> > > > And no, I don't get commission, own the company, sell for the
company,
> > or
> > > > date the owner's daughter, either.
> > > >
> > > > -Corey
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Owen Davies" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 12:59 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Power Basic programming-metastock
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Do you work for amibroke or you on commission
> > > > >
> > > > > In view of the above accusation toward another guy who,
> > > > > so far as I can tell, was only trying to help, maybe I'd better
> > > > > point out that I don't work for AmiBroker, either. Nor am
> > > > > I on commission.
> > > > >
> > > > > AmiBroker is a one-man operation. The programmer/pro-
> > > > > prietor/guru is a guy named Tomasz Janeczko, who appears
> > > > > to work about three times harder and five times more
> > > > > productively than the entire staff at Equis. (And don't
> > > > > get me started about those goniffs in Miami!) So far as
> > > > > I know, the only marketing is from the AmiBroker Web
> > > > > site and by word of mouth from satisfied customers.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't heard of any dissatisfied ones, but perhaps they
> > > > > just quietly go away.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the program has a flaw, it's that it requires more
> > > > > programming skill, and consequently clearer thought
> > > > > about what you are trying to accomplish, than the
> > > > > competing products. In return, it does most of what you
> > > > > want; accepts add-ins in jscript, vbscript, and other
> > > > > languages for the things it can't do on its own; and doesn't
> > > > > lie to you about the results of your system tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm finding that its learning curve is steeper than with
> > > > > Metastock and SuperCharts, but also that the rewards
> > > > > are enough greater to justify the effort. And then some.
> > > > >
> > > > > Owen Davies
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|