Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (245)	2/2/2001 1:26:03 PM
From: Lola	Respond to of 8273

Oh boy ... all the search engines will be sued next because they sell the trademarks of corporations as ad words ... very cheap most of them I might add. I know because I buy them ... I guess the search engines think they can get away with it. If they can do it so can a schmuck like this guy especially since he is not even using CNNfn's trademark. Lola:)

To: marcos who wrote (245)	2/2/2001 1:40:11 PM
From: Lola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

I did a search on Goto to see how much they sell the CNNfn trademark for and it only costs 0.04 per click for the #1 slot, 0.03 per click for the #2 slot and 0.01 per click for the #3 slot... I bet CNNfn is not suing Goto. Lola:)

To: marcos who wrote (245)	2/2/2001 2:50:26 PM
From: LeonardSlye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8273

Yeah, it does seem a little oxymoronic doesn’t it...a standard deviation, LOL. I’m mathematically challenged unless there’s a dollar sign in front of it and have never studied stats, but I’ll give ‘er a go from my understanding of it. The central line is a simple moving average for a certain period, I prefer 20 for shorter term trading. Now for the deviant part. Basically if you add all of the data points for price and divide by the number of points, you’ll get the arithmetical mean which you subtract from each of the data points. OK? Then, for some ungodly reason you square each of them (I guess it’s to get rid of the negative numbers). You add them up like the price points before and divide them by the number of periods. When you find the square root of that, you’ve got a number. This is the standard deviation and statisticians say you can measure volatility with it; who am I to argue? Read, "risk" for "volatility" et voila, n'est ce pas? For 20 days and up, Bollinger (I think his brother played with “Phil ‘n the Blanks”) recommends doubling the standard deviation and somewhat less for shorter periods. You put that point equidistant above and below the SMA. Get them moving and you’ve got bands. This is why I was saying I think you’d need pretty consistent data, otherwise you’d throw the time thing out of whack. There's probably other reasons I'm not aware of. Actually, the ones I use are the so-called Better Bollinger Bands. The formula is available here nt-tech.com.au I’ve been trying to get a handle on this TA thing for awhile now, it's just that I get such a kick out of it when it comes out right. It's just one more tool, but a good one I think. BTW, have you noticed CGM.V? I found it through a MetaStock exploration for stocks moving out of channels. Quite a love affair the National Bank seems to be having with them. But nobody else really seems to want to dance. According to their financial statements they do seem to depend upon the kindness of strangers to pay their wages and exploration costs...maybe a little pump going to get some financing? FWIW. Hasta luego, have a great weekend Lenny