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 : Technical Analysis - Beginners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris who wrote (11620)	2/20/2001 11:26:08 PM
From: Nazbuster	Respond to of 12039

OT: LOL! Your story reminded me of a senior programmer years ago who had a similar problem in that his results always came out with the wrong sign and off by 1, so he added 1 and multiplied by -1 for all calcs. to correct the problem. [cringe!]

To: Chris who wrote (11620)	2/21/2001 9:56:50 AM
From: TechTrader42	Respond to of 12039

I can't seem to find that issue of TASC, Chris. Maybe we used it in the fireplace already. (A cold winter here, and magazines are actually cheaper than firewood.) MacRandy's solution is a possibility. Or maybe in this market, all moving averages have moved to negative values. Or maybe the buffing moving average is prophetic. ESignal has a volume-weighted MA in charts, btw.

To: Chris who wrote (11620)	2/21/2001 10:10:18 AM
From: TechTrader42	Respond to of 12039

I just found that issue of TASC (not the latest issue, which is the March issue). I get negative values with that Metastock formula, too, Chris.

To: Chris who wrote (11620)	2/21/2001 10:17:18 AM
From: TechTrader42	Respond to of 12039

There's an error in the formula in TASC, Chris: It should be: Sum(V*C,X)/(Cum(V)-Ref(Cum(V),-X)) Note the minus sign in front of X. TASC left that out. Without it, they're looking into the future and subtracting future cumulative values for volume.