|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Thank you much for the words of wisdom, Bellamy.
And thanks for taking the time to explain it in detail. Granted, it's
an extremely simple formula and only shows the user what can be easily
observed already by looking at a chart. My aim is, however, to use
this and other seemingly simple true or false conditions to improve
upon the accuracy of an FBB system, which seems to return results that
include extremely weak stocks. Yes, there may very well have been a
"breakout" in some of these weak stocks, but a stock that has recently
spent most of its time above its 50 EMA is usually a more qualified
candidate for further study.
Thanks again,
M
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bellamy_29m" <bellamy_29m@xxx>
wrote:
>
> mmbbrr79 and Pablo,
>
> "There is a very big difference between just hammering away with
> numbers, and understanding precisely what the numbers are showing you."
>
> There is no (or at least very little) difference between:
>
> {Method 1}
> AboveDays/Max(BelowDays,1)
>
> and
>
> {Method 2}
> AboveDays/lookback.
>
> Put some sample data in it and see for yourself:
>
> If lookback=10 and there was:
>
> 0 days above the EMA and 0 days below the EMA (all the days were ON
> the EMA, if it were possible)
> => Method 1 = 0/Max(0,1) = 0.0 (WITHOUT tripping an error)
> => Method 2 = 0/10 = 0.0
>
> etc
>
> 5 days above the EMA and 5 days below the EMA
> => Method 1 = 5/5 = 1.0
> => Method 2 = 5/10 = 0.5
>
> etc
>
> 10 days above the EMA and 0 days below the EMA
> => Method 1 = 10/Max(0,1) = 10.0
> => Method 2 = 10/10 = 1.0
>
> Method 1 has a range of 0 to x, so is normalised in this range.
> Method 2 has a range of 0 to 1, so is classically normalised.
>
> The shape of the plotted graph will be the same, just on different
> scales. Method 1 will produce relatively smooth changes over a time
> period (more 'roundness') as it has the larger range. Method 2 will be
> a little more 'spiky' as the range is small in the same time period.
>
> Trigger levels etc can be coded in exactly the same way, and will
> produce very similar results, if not exactly the same results.
>
> Instead of arguing about it here, why not write both systems into MS
> and see which one YOU like. I haven't bothered testing it in MS
> becuase I don't value the indicator. I am not going to say it wont
> work for an individual's trading system, but, just by looking at the
> code snippets I know that it isn't in MY trading style.
>
> Again,
> "There is a very big difference between just hammering away with
> numbers, and understanding precisely what the numbers are showing you."
>
> Its not a matter of being right or wrong; its a matter of YOU deciding
> what INFORMATION you want to get out of YOUR plot.
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/BefplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|