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: TA2K who wrote (9758)	3/5/1999 5:22:00 PM
From: Richard Estes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12039

I am sure you will find my often-repeated views on why classic indicators values aren't appropriate for most stocks when you read past posts in this topic. You might even find it in the last 200 or so. But you have the tools to determine that for your self. Now reread my questions, and fully answer them, I don't have the tools to answer them.

To: TA2K who wrote (9758)	3/5/1999 5:23:00 PM
From: CatLady	Respond to of 12039

Pages 158 & 274 in the Metastock manual. The fixed period MACD is Gerald Appel's original definition.

To: TA2K who wrote (9758)	3/5/1999 6:02:00 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12039

Nicholas, I'm aware of how to formulate alternative MACDs. But you will agree that the standard MSWin MACD function does not allow for the inputting of different values, which I found to be curious, and possibly significant. I think you are too stuck on semantics or tricky thoughts! What makes how the default MACD in MSWin is constructed 'possibly significant'? I could be wrong, but I view it from a software developer's / vendor's perspective - We made this product - we need to stuff it full of classic and popular indicators as a starting point - we'll give users the tools to make their own - we need to sell it now I think that's the limit of the significance. I find personally that most of the standard values in WOW, for instance, don't work for me or the securities I follow. There doesn't seem to be much magic to it, just apply to a bunch of stocks and step through day by day, and see where the indicator would have you in and out; and whether that matches with your expectations/desires. So, I think Richard answered your question. R.E. - You might see the reasons why classic indicator settings aren't used. Everyone here is an individual and has his own style. I think its pretty clear that most do not subscribe to the belief that there is a 'standard' way of doing anything! Just keep checking things out. So my own thought / question - If I were to hazard a guess as to why 'classic' indicator settings do not perform as well as they might have when their authors first developed them, would it be that market volatility is higher now? I recall reading something once in Schwagers 'Market Wizards' book, I think in his own introduction, where he relates that he had a fairly tight stop on a trade, one that he wouldn't even consider placing so tight these days. Would that be due to changes in market volatility or just experience as to what works with stop latitude?