Doesn't this part of Bruce's call the crossover?
if high(0)>high(-3)then
No, unfortunately. "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
It's a crossover between 1) the close and 2) the value of the high(-2) when Shark was last equal to one, if I understand it correctly (which may not be the case).
The Shark signal isn't all that complicated, but the ValidCk variable is another story -- because the scan will have to look back 25 days for those crossovers. Since Shark signals are valid only when they meet the condition of the ValidCk variable, I suppose we'll have to translate the durn thing, to get the complete system.
"'Do you suppose,' the Walrus said,
'That they could get it clear?'
'I doubt it,' said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.'"
Back to the woodshed. But as I said, the Shark signal seems OK. If worse came to worst, you could always check the validity of the signal in Metastock, after scanning for Shark signals.
Is it worth the effort to translate the ValidCk variable? Is the whole system worth the effort? Have you looked at the signals? Some of them are less than wonderful. Look at ABTX, for example. What's that buy signal on June 16 all about? Getting eaten by sharks, it appears.
But no matter. Coding is its own reward (she said, dubiously).
Brooke |
