|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I did carry my long position overnight, however it was not based on
the 2-period ROC, it was primarily because the position was closing
strongly in my favor, in addition to the research that Connors and
Raschke did on the NR4 day (as discussed in Street Smarts) that they
would carry it overnight if (once again) it closed strongly in their
favor AFTER an NR4 day.
---"Nixon(MLS)" <mbjp57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So you would carry the position if the ROC had flipped that day?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnny Storm <iceman_nrg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Nixon(MLS) <mbjp57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; RealTraders Discussion Group
> <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 16 March 1999 17:08
> Subject: Re: T-Bond Day Trading for Tuesday, March 16
>
>
> >My interpretation of the 2 Period ROC is only to tell you if you
> >should carry a position overnight.
> >
> >JS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---"Nixon(MLS)" <mbjp57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bob,
> >>
> >> You wrote,
> >>
> >> >The "pressure" being applied to yesterday's
> >> >market by the 2 Day ROC Sell signal was downward in direction.
> >>
> >> Further to my email of yesterday and as I said I am no expert on
> >this one as
> >> I don't really use the the Street Smarts 2 day ROC Indicator in my
> >trading
> >> other than as background info and even then only occasionally.
> >Having said
> >> that I still disagree with your interpretation of the "signal" if
> >signal it
> >> be. You were calling for a sell yesterday but the 2day ROC had
just
> >> flipped up so is unlikely to flip down again without a further up
> >move which
> >> is what we saw yesterday. Today is more likely to be a flip down
> >day but
> >> you have to look at the number which will cause the Indicator to
> >flip which
> >> today is 122-06. Sometimes when you look at where this flip number
> >is that
> >> the market could still be substantially higher and the ROC could
> >still flip
> >> down. In addition having looked at your gif chart your 2 day ROC
> >does
> >> seem to be incorrect as it seems a lot more 'jumpy' than the
version
> >I got
> >> from the publishers of Street smarts.
> >>
> >> I would be interested to hear from anyone else using this one who
> >could give
> >> a little more guidance on it's interpretation.
> >>
> >> Just food for thought.
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Philip
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_________________________________________________________
> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|