[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Multi-time frame explorations



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Pierre,

I think you might be right...thanks ;-)  Its an extra stop but not a
complicated
or time consuming one.  Only one problem. I just did a simple test and it
couldnt
even prosuce correct results.  I did a test for RSI(14) < 50 on weekly first
then
ran it again using the last exploration fro daily timeframe. And it seemed
to produce
a nice list of a few stocks but I thought lets check the RSI numbers against
a real
chart with a 14 day RSI...ooops....they dont match!!!  Exploration is
somehow creating
different RSI numbers than a simple graph of the RSI.  How can this be?
This is about
as simple a test I can do, but it gives me wrong answers.  How can I
possibly trust it
to work on more complicated calculations?  This is a MAJOR flaw unless I
have made a
mistake somewhere. Perhaps someone else could do there own test to confirm
or deny
my conclusions.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Pierre Tremblay
> Sent: Monday, 31 December 2001 6:49 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Multi-time frame explorations
>
>
> Adrian,
>
> You can do that with MS 7.0 and later :
>
> First, you choose weekly as exploration periodicity in OPTIONS. You run
> your exploration with RSI(14) < 30 in the filter.
>
> Now, you have the result for your weekly data. Then you change
> exploration periodicity to daily. OK and OK again. EXPLORE and now you
> check the case USE RESULTS FROM LAST EXPLORATION. You will have results
> for RSI(14) < 30 weekly and daily.
>
> Pierre Tremblay
>
> Adrian Pitt a écrit :
>
> > Can someone inform me if its possible to do multi-timeframe
> > explorationsin Metastock.  Such as doing a search for stocks that have
> > an RSI < 30 on thedaily and an RSI < 30 on the weekly.  Its my
> > perception from looking at theprogram that you can't.  Am I missing
> > something obvious?Thanks in Advance,Adrian
>