|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>My EOD data is in the MetaStock format which
seems to be incompatible with Y2K . I have used the MetaStock converter to
convert and artificial ascii data file from 1999 to 2001 to the MetaStock format
and the data always comes out scrambled. Does anyone have any solid
information on the Y2K capabilities of MetaStock data format?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>PS. The only Y2K compliant EOD
format that I know about is CSI which would require a switch to a new data
vendor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Patrick. </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Fri Oct 30 16:49:00 1998
Received: from list.listserver.com (198.68.191.15)
by mail02.rapidsite.net (RS ver 0.3) with SMTP id 18674
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:49:39 -0400 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id QAA13059;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crusoe.crusoe.net (crusoe.crusoe.net [206.136.64.10])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with ESMTP id QAA12889
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:46:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default ([209.123.32.43]) by crusoe.crusoe.net
(Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52487U2500L250S0V35)
with SMTP id net; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:46:28 -0500
Message-Id: <363A3383.2F7C@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:45:39 -0200
Reply-To: swp@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: steven poser <swp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: VOLUME DISCUSSION ANYONE?
References: <74c9c1c7.363a4f37@xxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-To: GREHERT@xxxxxxx
X-Cc: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: d1621b3fb15786825c976092144ebb77
I think what he was implying is that you have the tick volume throughout
the day, giving you a feel for the info. It is certainly a guide that
works well using market profile (not that i am a market profile kinda
guy). You do get volume though by the open the next day usually, so it
is not such a bad lag as ticks are usually a pretty good relative guide.
GREHERT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-10-30 15:47:02 EST, vibri@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << Total-Ticks-per-day is a better indicator of market activity than
> volume >>
>
> Why would this be? Doesn't the tick-volume ignore the volume size of each
> tick thereby making it less meaningful. Wouldn't it be equivalent to giving
> each up-day a volume of +1 and each down-day a volume of -1 in EOD data?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jerry Rehert (grehert@xxxxxxx)
> Atlanta, GA
> @ 06:40 pm, October 30th, 1998
|