[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[RT] Re: Bearish MA Crossovers in Nasdaq chart



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

One problem with such assumptions as was made in this
post is the lack of looking back at all such MA crossovers.

Just for kicks I have attached a similar crossover.

Quite a spell -- price wise -- before a meaningful rally.

DO NOT GET TRAPPED INTO SUCH A SIMPLE
ANALYSIS AS A FACT.

IT MAY BE BUT IT MAY NOT BE ! ! ! !

Such assumptions may be hazardous to your health!!!!!


Clyde


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clyde Lee   Chairman/CEO       (Home of SwingMachine)
SYTECH Corporation             email:   <clydelee@xxxxxxx>
7910 Westglen, Suite 105       Work:    (713) 783-9540
Houston,  TX  77063            Fax:     (713) 783-1092
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To subscribe / unsubscribe from SwingMachine list
http://www.egroups.com/list/swingmachine/

After joining list the freeware SwingMachine program
(DOS Version) is available in the  VAULT  at:
http://www.egroups.com/list/swingmachine/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis L. Conn" <dennisconn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 20:58
Subject: [RT] Re: Bearish MA Crossovers in Nasdaq chart


> Hi Joe & all,
>
> Gee, I actually thought I'd stumbled upon something new - I've been
looking
> at this multiple MA crossover phenomenon for a couple months now. My
> comments are based on preliminary observations, but here's what I've
noticed
> that appears to warrant further investigation:
>
> J.F. - "There was an interesting article in Stock and Commodities back
in
> Feb 98.  The  title "Multipule Moving Avg. by Daryl Guppy.   For short
term
> traders he used the averages of 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15 day EMA.  Long
term, 35,
> 40, 45, 50, 60 EMA."
>
> D.C. - I'd been looking at a combination of 21, 34, 55, and 89 period
EMA
> regardless of trading timeframe (like Steve Karnish, I'm just crazy
about
> those Fib numbers). This seemed to yield better results on intraday
charts
> (much better using all session data). Just for kicks, today I looked
at a
> daily chart of the NASDAQ composite and tried a combination of simple
moving
> averages using the same period inputs. The simple MA combo seems to be
more
> accurate than the more sensitive EMA. But I think I use it differently
than
> the author in TASC...
>
> J.F. - "How to use it, fairly simple. When one group of EMA would
bunch up
> and start to cross the other group, you would know to go short or
long."
>
> D.C. - Does this imply that if the MA crossover occurs in an upward
> direction that it's time to start looking for a long entry? From what
I've
> observed, using my EMA combination, prices would be at new swing
highs; once
> the 21, 34, and 55 EMAs have all moved above the 89 EMA, I see prices
> correct a bit and then hit one or two new highs before turning down
for a
> playable short (this minor correction should last for several periods
before
> going to a new high). Occasionally, a third high will be hit before a
> worthwhile short play. But the short play is always more profitable
than
> going long on the crossover (of course, the opposite is true when the
EMA
> crossover happens in a downward direction). So I'm looking to fade the
MA
> crossover, as opposed to following along in it's direction. Of course,
in a
> parabolic move up, one could wait for hell to freeze over before
finding a
> correction and rally setup to fade the crossover. So there'd be a lot
of
> missed profit by not playing the MA direction - but since those
parabolic
> moves like to correct sharply, they're not something I'm inclined to
jump on
> anyway.
>
> I'm attaching two charts of the NASDAQ with the simple and exponential
MA
> combos to illustrate the difference. In a sense, some combination of
MA
> crossovers would seem to be a decent leading indicator - in a
contrarian
> way. No, I'm not trying to reheat that argument about leading/lagging
> indicators - please, let's not go there again! If it's something that
works
> for you, then great - use it. If not, then don't. I'm just looking for
> possibilities here. All I know is that when I see a crossover now, I
start
> to salivate... : )
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis C.
>


Attachment Converted: "f:\eudora\attach\junk120.gif"