|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I firmly believe that the period of a Moving Average should be
determined by the stock data itself. You want it long enough to
smooth out unwanted variation, but not so long that it erases the
variation you are interested in.
I watch 26-day and 50-day Moving Averages to verify my trendlines.
I use RSI(9) and STOCH(9,4,4) to make my trades. If the STOCH(9) is
too slow, I use STOCH(5,3,3).
But I can't prove (even to my own satisfaction) that these are the
best numbers to use. Theoretically, you should be able to use an FFT
(Fast Fourier Transform) to find the best period. But I have not had
any luck using that.
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:02:37 -0700, R Rodgers wrote:
>Hi Gordon, I'm curious concerning the amount of days you use for the RSI
>and Stochastics indicators. I also use these indicators to confirm each
>other and use them only for certain jobs (for dips only or rallies only and
>depending on the trend - will use one oscillator for dips and others for
>rallies, and certain ones for confirmation, etc.) For longer term, I've
>used 25-day Momentum, 25-day RSI, and 25-day Percent R. Then divide the
>Type 1, Type 2 divergences, and rallies and dips between them. Thanks for
>your time - Richard
>
>At 10:00 PM 7/25/97 GMT, you wrote:
>>The thing about those charts is how clear the buy is.
>>
>>The Stochastic gives some very good buy and sell signals. Perhaps too
>>many of them. The RSI gives fewer signals. I try to use it to verify
>>the Stoch signals.
>>
>>I have noticed this about RSI: When the stock is in an uptrend
>>channel, the RSI gives good SELL signals, but will not give you a BUY
>>signal to get back into the stock. I use the Stochastic for the buy.
>>
>>Similarly, when the stock is in a downtrend, the RSI will give you a
>>good BUY signal, but not a sell.
>>
>>Perhaps the problem is that the horizontal lines at 80 and 20 are not
>>flexible enough. Maybe they should be in different places based on
>>the stock trend.
>>
>>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:03:49 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>> I looked at your charts. Thanks!
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>----------
>>>From: Guy Gordon <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: Re: Breakout Alerts: CUBE and PAIR
>>>Date: Thursday, July 24, 1997 9:03 PM
>>>
>>>If anyone wants to see my charts on PAIR, CUBE, QNTM, and AGPH, they
>>>are posted at:
>>>
>>>http://www.white-crane.com/pair.htm
>>>http://www.white-crane.com/cube.htm
>>>http://www.white-crane.com/qntm.htm
>>>http://www.white-crane.com/agph.htm
>>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 21:00:03 GMT, I wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just a quick note: take a look at C-Cube Microsystems (CUBE) and
>>>>Pairgain Tech (PAIR). Both of these look like good buys.
|