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: Jan Robert Wolansky who wrote (7471)	1/3/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: peter n matzke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12039

Hi Jan: i prefer a system to work under all conditions(bull,bear,neutral markets) and on all stocks, is because it creates a much safer system. i'm not sure if its ok to post demarks short sytem, but it is in his book The New Science of Technical Analysis, when i back tested it has been the best short system i have been able to find--if some one has a better one, i am very interested. the demark short is about break even(actual entry 1/8's and commission costs--i use $25 as default--will mean a profit or loss). when i used low QRS<25 the results improve--85% profitable trades--profit of about 18% annually better screening should yield better results. better ideas/formulas would be greatly appreciated thanks peter

To: Jan Robert Wolansky who wrote (7471)	1/3/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: David R. Evans	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12039

Hello Jan, Think about it, wouldn't you want to test the system you are going to use against the same way you are going to use it??????? I do not care how my system test against slow moving dogs because I will never be looking at slow moving dogs.... There is only ONE rule in trading, MAKE MONEY... All the rest is BS... You can show me all the high testing system you want and you know what??? Most of them will lose money in the real world. If you are trading 80/80's then test against 80/80's. If you are trading the DJ30 then test with the DJ30... The bottom line is MAKE MONEY... Dave Evans

To: Jan Robert Wolansky who wrote (7471)	1/4/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: Dick Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12039

Stay uncomfortable. I good system that exploits trends shouldn't just be backtested against stocks that HAVE been trending..most likely if RS>=80. Good backtesting should go against a random group of stocks. I have no problems if one wants to invest/trade with 80/80 stocks. This is one reason most systems arn't worth the paper they are printed on..when faced with random stocks to backtest against, darts do as well.. Dick..

To: Jan Robert Wolansky who wrote (7471)	1/4/1998 12:15:00 PM
From: David Russell Coburn II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12039

Heres something you might try: ******************************** Output = "yr_2_80.lst" Exchange Nasdaq IssueType Common if (QRS(-500) > 80) and ( AvgVol(-9,-509) => 50000 ) and ( Close(-500) => 2 ) and ( Close(-500) < 30) then Println Symbol endif ******************************** This will give you a set of stocks that were at RS of 80 and above, 9 day simple average volume of 50,000 or more, and price between $2 and $30 as of two years ago. Fill your "system testing" database with these and use a two year period for testing. Obviously you can change it around to go farther back or put in other factors that you may want. I don't do this but I have had similar thoughts before on testing stocks that were strong now and getting scewed results. This is a legitimate concern if you only use a small amount of data. The real solution, I believe, is to use as much data as you can get. 5 to 10 years should suffice. This should include down, flat, and rising periods. I would also suggest you look at how the particular system performed during the three different types of movement. Just a suggestion. David PS.Just notice that the thread automatically omits my forward slashes. There should be a forward slash(bottom after top) after each of the and statements.