glgene
616 posts
msg #102878
- Ignore glgene |
10/9/2011 4:22:32 PM
I have never written a script with ^SPX in it, and on my first attempt, something is wrong.
I don't get the results on ^SPX, but rather the results on all 10,068 stocks.
Can you not put an indice, e.g., ^SPX, in a script? If you can, how should I change my simple script line above?
Gene
|
straken
469 posts
msg #102879
- Ignore straken |
10/9/2011 7:14:38 PM
^SPX is an index, not a stock..and cannot appear in filter results due to lack of data. However you can use the index for comparison or correlation or indicator position. See knowledgebase for info.
Link Here
|
glgene
616 posts
msg #102880
- Ignore glgene |
10/9/2011 8:44:34 PM
Straken,
Thanks. But a little confused. Would you show me a quick 2 or 3-line SF script that could, for example, include ^SPX for a beneficial reason?
I was hoping to include ^SPX in a Force Index calculation. I guess that is out.
Gene
|
straken
469 posts
msg #102890
- Ignore straken |
10/10/2011 1:17:49 PM
Gene,
Heres one of my old Force Index filters. I added some ^SPX correlation to so you could see how its used. Feel free to edit as you need.
|
glgene
616 posts
msg #102892
- Ignore glgene |
10/10/2011 1:49:37 PM
Thanks, again, Straken...
Your example is well taken. I'll work thru it.
By the way, did you know that SF computes the Force Index on SMA, not EMA. I brought this to their attention and they sent me the conversion code to comply with EMA.
Dr. Alexander Elder, creator of the Force Index, clearly modeled it with EMA in the equation. With your FI(2) example, it amounts to not using 50% SMA, but 67% EMA.
EMA = 2/N+1
EMA = 2/2+1
EMA = 2/3
EMA = .667
Whereas with SMA, each day of the 2 days is worth .500 each.
But that's beside the point with my question re: ^SPX. Is correlation the best use for it?
Gene
|
glgene
616 posts
msg #102894
- Ignore glgene |
10/10/2011 2:35:34 PM
Correction to my previous post, where I said: "With your FI(2) example, it amounts to not using 50% SMA, but 67% EMA." Should have read the reverse. Standard SF scripting (SMA) would have FI(2) resulting in 50% weighting instead of 67% weighting in EMA for FI(2).
Using the generic FI(13) setting, SMA weighting would be 7.69% (1/13) vs. EMA weighting of 14.28% (2/N+1).
Gene
|
straken
469 posts
msg #102895
- Ignore straken |
10/10/2011 2:44:32 PM
Gene,
Thats an old filter that I dont use anymore for the reasons you mentioned along with the rounding function would not work to close up FI readings. When I wrote it I was looking for just a few decimals along with a volume ratio, thats why you may wonder why the code starts with var6 or something like that. Its just a piece of a filter I snatched out to add the index corr and compare to just to give you an example. I really haven't delved into many correlation filters because I trade individual stock options based on there own merits or lack of and really have no need for index corr. I assume it may be useful to those who trade stocks that are part of that index to find a correlation coefficient as signs of movement but I mainly watch the option pits for the majority of my trades. There are a few filters I still use here but I have migrated most of them over to stockfinder for the realtime data. Hardest decision I'm facing today is whether to keep holding ATVI or unload it. Its still getting good coverage over the MW3 release coming out. I picked it off at 10.50 expecting good results from the MW3 release but I expect its due for a pullback soon.
|