| Author |
Message |
     alexm
Member
Username: alexm
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2008Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 07:30 pm: |  
|
Hello, does the time period selection when editing Indicators always follow the daily, weekly, monthly selection?
ie if my selection is daily and the time period I select is 182, is that 182 days? OR If my selection is weekly and the time period selected is 26, is that 26 weeks?
Alex
|
colin_twiggs
Member
Username: colin_twiggs
Post Number: 3098
Registered: 09-2002Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 03:43 pm: |
|
Alex,
The indicator settings are independent of whether you display Daily, Weekly or Monthly bars on your chart. The Indicator title should show this. For example, Volume Daily or MACD Weekly. This may also be abbreviated to Volume:Dy or MACD:Wk if you have the legend open (by typing "L" on your keyboard).
Regards,
Colin
|
sway
Member
Username: sway
Post Number: 114
Registered: 12-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 03:44 pm: |
|
Alex
Good point. You are basically correct, but note that you can define say a 26wk and 182d EMA for each of the daily, weekly and monthly charts. The EMAs will be the same on all 3 charts for the 26wk and 182d, BUT a 26wk EMA will not be equal to a 182d EMA. I'm not sure of the maths here, maybe Colin Twiggs will respond. I thought it may be something to do with trading days versus calender days, but I now I don't think it is, having plotted 52wk and 12mth EMAs and seeing different values.
Hopefully another ICer will supply some more answers.
Cheers
Sway
|
dug
Member
Username: dug
Post Number: 3089
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 03:32 pm: |
|
sway wrote on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 03:44 pm:BUT a 26wk EMA will not be equal to a 182d EMA
Been waiting months for this to be replied to sway.
I think it[the difference week to day]is because the weekly average is calculated on the Friday Close each week.
I'm still not sure'n'positive on the Day Averages.Are they on 7days in a week or 5 Trading days to a [normal]week?So 200days is 40 Trading Weeks or is it 200days divided by 7= near 29weeks?
I have noticed that Trading Halts are included in the day MA with the close prior to Halt carried over for the duration of the Halt.
IF it is that Weekly Averages are calculated by Friday's Closes?then I reckon that is giving too much weight to Day Short Term Holders gathering up their WeekEnd Partying Money!!
I still consider VWAP values way higher than mere closing price Averaging but I seem to be on me Pat Malone in d'Wilderness on the wonders of VWAP.
Maybe Weinstein will write about VWAP,hey sway and I'll be joined by new Disciples and Converts.
cheers.
Even 'til Jaded.
Dig for the sake of it.
|
sway
Member
Username: sway
Post Number: 270
Registered: 12-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 03:39 pm: |
|
Dug
If Colin is reading, maybe he can clarify?
On the Weinstein thing, I doubt it. As far as I know, the 1988 original edition is still the current one.
Cheers
Sway
This is not a recommendation or advice. As they say .... DYOR.
|
dug
Member
Username: dug
Post Number: 3096
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 09:16 am: |
|
I emailed Colin about this,sway.
Reply was Weekly calculated on Friday Close and Trading not Calendar Days for Daily.
This puts me in a position of questioning the use of 30 days MA's.I think a Pilgrim relates this to a Month when it's really 6 weeks.A month would be 21 days approx.
Same thing to 180DMA it's not a Half Year it's 69%.
but I've got other "problems" with MA's like I don't go along with the Conventional Wisdom of Exponential is superior to Simple.
Why? Expo is suppose to be quicker,weigh the most recent price more "significantly" than the 30 days ago price.However I see/reckon that the 30days ago price is perhaps more "significant" because it's been paid by the pilgrim more bored,having second third thoughts compared to the eager bought yesterday dreamer ie the 30 dayer is more likely to be a seller than yesterday's Goer.
Anyhow,Weinstein says I'm wrong,hey sway so it must be so,right?
You do realise that Charting at least in Australia was very Ignored back in 1988?It's exponents were Known CrackPots,at least by the General Market.All these New Indicators like Bollingers,MACD etc were not available to all,only Advanced Maths Graduates could possibly even try them.
We can see today how the Pilgrims are flat out getting a grip on Fibo let alone delving into the world of Calculus.They just push a button and Believe what spits out as a squilly line on their screen.
At least we know now,sway that the Indicators using Moving Averages can be tweaked,adjusted to measuring Trading Day Periods.A month is 21 days.
Also remember that Trading Halt period/days are included using the previous close each day as the Halt Day figure in MA calculations.I think that mechanism is a SkewIffer,myself.
cheers.
Even 'til Jaded.
Dig for the sake of it.
|
sway
Member
Username: sway
Post Number: 290
Registered: 12-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Thursday, May 08, 2008 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Dug
Thanks for clearing that up. For my Weinstein charts I use the 30week Weighted moving average.
Sway
This is not a recommendation or advice. As they say .... DYOR.
|
dug
Member
Username: dug
Post Number: 3159
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, May 16, 2008 - 12:31 pm: |
|
sway,
do you know whether the Yanks have Friday's like ours? Like do they have the same Short Term Trader Friday Knock Off/Exodus in their Market?
I thought the ASX got hit by this more because "they" didn't want to be Open when there was another Session coming up in America and the UK.
See IF it's more an ASX eccentricity?then Weinsteins use of 30 weeks using Friday's Close should be "adapted" for Oz conditions by switching to 150 Days,thus avoiding a Weighting in Day Trader "foibles".
whotcha reckon?
cheers.
Even 'til Jaded.
Dig for the sake of it.
|
sway
Member
Username: sway
Post Number: 302
Registered: 12-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, May 16, 2008 - 02:06 pm: |
|
Dug
Good point. You are probably correct about our Fridays being hit my nervous nellies but I don't think it makes much difference to a Weinsteiner. I'll put the 150d WMA on my charts and see what it tells me though.
Cheers
Sway
This is not a recommendation or advice. As they say .... DYOR.
|
efficiency
Member
Username: efficiency
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, May 23, 2008 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Being a lazy arrogant Yank, I can't resist.
Weinstein's four stages is more or less plagerized from the writings of Richard Wykcoff from the teens and '20's. In other words not orginal, nor gospel.
Weinstein's newsletter, The Professional Tape Reader, was PURCHASED from Justin Mamis. A Canadian, now 79 years old and a good analyst in his own right.
The 1988 book is the one and only edition.
Triple moving averages were written about by Dawn Bolton-Smith, an Austrailian, as early as 1964 (and probably the basis for Daryl Guppy's namesake moving averages).
Is dwelling on a weighted or simple moving average, in a 30 week/150 day timeframe anal retentive or comical? Will the distinction make you money? Is money even your motive?
A moving average is nothing more than a high frequency filter of a data series and has a most definite inherent LAG.
IF Stan is STILL publishing, please let me know.
Lastly, you'd better served by reading Ted Warren's 1966 book, or, alternatively for shorter timeframes, George Douglass (yes two S's) Taylor's book published in 1950.
You also might give some thought to the accumulation, distribution, and re-accumulation of PAPER (and each process's respective time frame). Afterall, that's all a stock is: a negotiable paper financial instrument, carried on the balance sheet at par. You will never see the earnings. Only the possibly of enhanced book value and priced as a multiple(s). (Earnings revenue and BV).
Cheers.
|
dug
Member
Username: dug
Post Number: 3181
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 11:45 am: |
|
you're pretty good,efficiency,I like your posts even if you are a yank.
Could be because you live out of the cities,how big is Omaha?Don't tell me,I'll look it up myself.
Anyway,I'm not a Weinsteiner myself.I just think that his "process" is adopted as an explanation/method chiefly to justify "pilgrims to Mammon" with "A far away expert from New York says this and little ol' me,a mere pilgrim is impressed and certainly have no reason to doubt a New Yorkers Say So" etc blah,simper.
Also just finished reading your post in USA fertiliser,efficiency.Very interesting but do you really think all Sellers are smarter/insider/market makers?
ALL? Every Time?while Buyers predominately are "dills"?
or just in this particular stock,evocatively called POT?
Of course,you don't think the equation Every Buy has a Seller is so weighted/biased on the Sell side.Only reply if you so do.
I look forward to you posting more in general.I remember your Jesse Livermore debunk that was never replied to.
d'Jesse is quite the Idol Figure around here.Quite a lot of Identification with him goes on.
It's the Money Thing,efficiency.The Rock Star Qualities,d'Lifestyle Aspirations along with that Big in New York Definition of Winner and Loser.
our mate wine inna stein has that rubbing off on him to.
anyhow,just lazy sunday tapping,efficiency.
see ya round.
Even 'til Jaded.
Dig for the sake of it.
|
efficiency
Member
Username: efficiency
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 01:30 pm: |
|
LOL, you can blame my mother for being a Yank. She should have married a rich Aussie. But Rupert was already taken.
It's not Weinstein's process. He just ran with it. There is a little sumpthin' to the 4 stages. But a little cumbersome for timing. Just tells you where you are in the scheme of things. Scheme. Good word. Also rhymes with dream. In effect, with one of my accounts, I do indeed try to enter long when emerging from stage 1 to stage 2. However, I merely "call it" a breakout from a low level, multi-year BASE. One filter would be material inside ownership/but low institutional ownership as a proportion of shares outstanding. Room to move.
As a preference, such a break out on quiet volume. Means little for sale and/or IN strong hands. In other words a sustainable campaign.
Yep I missed POT. I actually discussed it with a large farmer (operation not rotund) in 1997. Given the chart, how many people have been holding for 11 years??????????
No, not biased on the sell side. But in la la land, the COMPOSITION of the players has changed. An accounting term, last in first out (LIFO) is applicible to momentum players (momo's). Aren't "they" a little late to the party?
Livermore died by his own hand. Need we say more? Nothing wrong with having idols. That is until you apply your hard eearned money trying to emulate them. Like any fantasy, the reality is seldom as glamourous. That applies to women too.
Oh, the Omaha-Lincoln corridor, with the burbs, is million or so. I live precisely 3.5 miles (sorry can't convert to kilometers) from Buffett. No, he's not my hero. However, in driving past his house one morning two months ago. I saw a Chinese TV camera crew of four. Funky wide license plate. Being curious ( an attribute instilled by my mother in lieu of marrying a rich Aussie) I stopped and chatted. Only one spoke English (something we Yanks have in common with Aussies). They need heros too.
G'day
|
sumamura
Member
Username: sumamura
Post Number: 82
Registered: 09-2004Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, June 06, 2008 - 01:22 pm: |
| | |
