Nicho*,
Sounds like a valid theory execution. That one'll work; you could abbreviate it to -
Close > Ref(HHV(Close,90),-1)
or use
Close = HHV(Close,90)
and/or stage increasing longer lookback periods against shorter ones to see if the hills and dales are net rising or falling.
Or you could experiment by setting % peak / trough value benchmarks on that topography in the same way so you don't limit yourself to an arbitrary or specific HHV lookback period. Something that would look for price surpassing a 10% prev price peak (or you could adapt it to any specific indicator value) might be -
Close > Ref(peak(1,Close,10),-1) OR
Close > peak(2,Close,10)
Tho peak / trough functions use zig-zag to determine existence, once you move beyond the most recent peak/trough ocurrences (meaning 2nd or 3rd most recent), they are more likely to be "fixed" and therefore slightly more believeable.
Here's an example of the pitfalls of Z-Z. Test this system that extracts the worst of the peak / trough delusions and you'll learn thru actual experience.
First set up a custom indicator called "Price OscPeak" -
If(PeakBars(1,CLOSE,2) < TroughBars(1,CLOSE,2), {then}CLOSE-Peak(1,CLOSE,2),{else}CLOSE-Trough(1,CLOSE,2));
Then test this system -
::Price Osc Peak System Test::
<<enter long>>
Blong:= If(Cross(Fml("Price OscPeak"),0) AND (Ref(Fml("Price OscPeak"),-2)<Fml("Price OscPeak")),1,0);
Blong=1;
<<enter short>>
SShort:= If(Cross(0,Fml("Price OscPeak")) AND (Ref(Fml("Price OscPeak"),-2)>Fml("Price OscPeak")),1,0);
SShort=1;
Definitely don't count on the results to make next months mortgage, or prepay that new MBenz. <g>
CP |
