|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Jim:
>What I'm wondering is if OB could be even better with a
>tigher definition of what an "issue" is.
I'm wondering if a narrower definition of breadth
could make it worse.
>>>He does suggest that because
>>> these "bastard" issues (my term) have low volume, that advancing/
>>> declining volume may be a better alternative.
It's a simple matter to test his theory: just replace ADV with UVOL.
Folks have contacted me privatly saying they have "much better" results
using a narrower definition of breadth in systems or methods
other than OddBall. I don't doubt it, but OddBall offers a simple
apples to apples test for various "data2 breadth" inputs with code
we all share. Thanks Mark!
BW
>From: Jim Johnson <jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: Jim Johnson <jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Bill Wynne" <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>CC: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re[2]: Advance-Decline data
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:37:42 -0500
>
>Hello Bill,
>
>OddBall could be doing OK in spite of the composition of the NYSE.
>Closed end funds have been around a while, albeit to an increasing
>degree. What I'm wondering is if OB could be even better with a
>tigher definition of what an "issue" is.
>
>To paraphrase another Bill, it depends on what your definition of issue
>is.
>
>--
>Best regards,
> Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Thursday, March 21, 2002, 10:20:44 AM, you wrote:
>
> >> As they say, this issue seems non-trivial.
>
>BW> I'll not argue that point at all, but has it
>BW> effected breadth based systems performance? Again
>BW> OddBall makes a nice benchmark as it uses breadth as
>BW> its only criteria.
>
>BW> BW
>
>
>
>
> >>From: Jim Johnson <jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Reply-To: Jim Johnson <jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: Advance-Decline data
> >>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:27:09 -0500
> >>
> >>Hello omega-list,
> >>
> >> I read McMillan's article in TASC last night about the junk that's
> >> included in the Advancing and Delcining issues data stream. It
> >> seems a fairly compelling case (many issues are closed end bond
> >> funds that may change price by only 1 cent based on interest rate
> >> changes). In addition, the 1 cent trade increment has cheapened the
> >> definition of an advance or a decline. He does suggest that because
> >> these "bastard" issues (my term) have low volume, that advancing/
> >> declining volume may be a better alternative.
> >>
> >> As they say, this issue seems non-trivial.
> >>
> >> I appears that Neoticker's NeoBreadth product may attempt to create
> >> custom A-D indices. Is that what it does, has anyone tried it?
> >> other thoughts on this data cancer problem amongst us?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Best regards,
> >> Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|