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 : TA-Quotes Plus -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig DeHaan who wrote (7289)	10/20/1998 5:22:00 PM
From: Nine_USA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11149

Craig, <<a more elegant way to avoid divide by zero errors caused by NegMF summation in MRatio other than my rig-o-rama>> Financial models should replace the divide functions provided by their programming language with an alternate divide which will test for zero denominators and return 0 in such cases. I doubt if there are many customers here who would prefer scans to crash rather than use the 0 result in such cases.

To: Craig DeHaan who wrote (7289)	10/20/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11149

That's not Wilder's RSI on Vol, Craig, but it guess it doesn't matter as long as Equis blessed it. Re the div by0, its probably safe to do as they did -- simply ignore the possibility of NegMF being zero because its rather unlikely that the vol won't increase for 14 consecutive days. Might want to file away for another time the workaround that follows -Bob ---------------------- print symbol,",",close(0):8:2; if NegMF < .0001 then MFI:= 100-100/(1+PosMF/.0001); print ",","MFI is < ",MFI; else MRatio:=PosMF/NegMF; MFI:=100- 100/(1+MRatio); print",","MFI: ",MFI:8:4; endif; println ",",PosMF:8:4,",",NegMF:8:4;

To: Craig DeHaan who wrote (7289)	10/21/1998 3:07:00 AM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11149

A final try at all 3, Craig. 1) Should have rearranged MFI from the start: MFI:= 100 -100/(1+NegMF/PosMF) = 100 -100NegMF/(NegMF+PosMF); no div by 0 and calc may be faster -- see below. 2)diddling the for loop and stepping thru [as I suggested for tsf] would be a pain for SMA but great for EMA. See EMA code below. 3) Is okay but I changed it to ----------- typPr:= high(i)+low(i)+close(i); ptypPr:= high(i-1)+low(i-1)+close(i-1); if typPr < ptypPr then NegMF:= NegMF + typPrvol(i)/3; endif; if typPr != ptypPr then Denom:= Denom + typPrvol(i)/3; endif; ------------ for the rearranged MFI. [I'm more than ready to switch to the TF+ version ;)]: (V((H+L+C)-TY1)U2(H+L+C))F&1100/(V((H+L+C)-TY1)U1U0(H+L+C))F&1 -Bob ------------- //--MoneyFlow Index-- // Change to eMFI to enable stepping thru a back test input = "250vol.lst"; output = "mfixx.lst"; issuetype common; integer i, lenMFI, bar, first, last; //add backtest vars float typPr, ptypPr, PosMF, NegMF, eMFI, peMFI, Denom; lenMFI:= 14; // Length of MFI EMA Set this to 27? **** first:= 0; last:= 0; // Set these neg for BT **** Daystoload = 1 +3lenMFI -first; // should settle EMA down enough DaysRequired = 1 +3lenMFI -first; // Now calc starting MFI PosMF:=0; NegMF:=0; Denom:= 0.0001; // precompile div by 0 for i = first - 3lenMFI to first -1 do // could reduce 3 to 1.5 typPr:= high(i)+low(i)+close(i); ptypPr:= high(i-1)+low(i-1)+close(i-1); if typPr < ptypPr then NegMF:= NegMF + (typPrvol(i)/3 -NegMF)2/(lenMFI+1); endif; if typPr != ptypPr then Denom:= Denom + (typPrvol(i)/3 -Denom)2/(lenMFI+1); endif; //eATR:= eATR + (tr-eATR)2/(lenATR+1); next i; peMFI:= 100 -100NegMF/Denom; // Now into "Backtesting loop for bar = first to last do // now typPr:= high(bar)+low(bar)+close(bar); ptypPr:= high(bar-1)+low(bar-1)+close(bar-1); if typPr < ptypPr then NegMF:= NegMF + (typPrvol(bar)/3 -NegMF)2/(lenMFI+1); endif; if typPr != ptypPr then Denom:= Denom + (typPrvol(bar)/3 -Denom)2/(lenMFI+1); endif; eMFI:= 100 -100NegMF/Denom; if eMFI > peMFI then println symbol,",",date(bar),",",close(Bar):8:2,",", peMFI:8:4,",",eMFI:8:4; endif; peMFI:= eMFI; // for next bar next bar;