Spydertrader's Jack Hershey Equities Journal II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the new chartscript Spyder!

As a noob, I am missing a bit of history here. I have noticed that Jack has not posted since 6/7. Is this normal for Jack to "dry up" for a while? Should we be expecting a large post to come soon?

On a side note, I have been voraciously studying Jack and Spyder's teachings for about 6 weeks now gathering relevant postings and putting them together into a 65 page summary document. I have seen a lot and learnt a lot in my 53 years in aerospace... but I have learned more from these two gents in 6 weeks than I have in 5 years of study on other topics. I took last Tuesday off to trade real time. It was a hoot, one of those Aha moments! Gaussians just like Jack said. You could see them and feel them. I know I have a lot, and I mean likely a few thousand hours yet to come in front of the screens before I have this down. But I sincerely thank you guys for the effort in teaching us.
 
Spyder

Thanks for sharing the Bruno script with us!

I found some suspicious code in your MACD calculation and it would change the results if the script is incorrect.

Code Snippet below

MHistMACD := SubtractSeries( MACDExSeries( #Close, val1, val2 ), EMASeries( MACDExSeries( #Close, val1, val2 ), val3 ) );
macdh := MultiplySeriesValue (MHistMACD, 3);

Why is the MHistMacd series being multiplied by 3 ? I don't think you should be muliplying the MACD Hist value. The Macd Hist value formula is:

val1 = ( EMA(5,CLOSE) - EMA(13,CLOSE) ) --fast macd
val2 = ( EMA(6, val1) ) --slow macd

MACDHist = val1 - val2;
 
Quote from 8833broc:

Why is the MHistMacd series being multiplied by 3?
More...

The friendly and helpful staff over at the Wealth-Lab.com web site helped out with this part of the chartscript code. The MACD Histogram simply expresses the divergence of the MACD lines in graphical form. By multiplying the divergence levels by three, a trader can more easily 'see' the changes as they occur in The MACD Histogram. Since we do not use absolute levels expressed by MACD, but rather, relative levels (e.g. rising, falling, positive, negative), multiplying the MHistMacd series by 3 for cosmetic reasons has no effect on performance. After all, 3 times zero is still zero.

- Spydertrader
 
Yes I agree. If I would of read the entire script I would of found this buy criteria @macdh[Bar] > 0 and it would not of mattered if it was .1 or (.1 * 3).

Thank you,
 
Quote from bigmoose:

Thanks for the new chartscript Spyder!

As a noob, I am missing a bit of history here. I have noticed that Jack has not posted since 6/7. Is this normal for Jack to "dry up" for a while? Should we be expecting a large post to come soon?
More...

Jack has told us directly that he has done away with ET, for the time being. Although, I think it is a great source of entertainment as well as nuggets of knowledge, much of it was largely falling on def and ignorant ears. Personally, I see no harm done were Jack to continue to punch up posts. In any event, an offline effort is forging forward with providing an idiot proof means of facilitating all that Jack would like to lay out without the intervention of self serving trollers and their invisible ink... It is a formidable task as you can probably imagine. We are seeing to it that it will get done... It is an excellent group of participants. It is absolutely stunning to see how much can happen when you have people contributing as opposed to just taking... If only ETers understood this, there would be no need for "paying" to acquire edges. They would just be discovered, assimilitated, and iterated at unimaginable rates... I could go through dozens of such discorveries that I had to find the hard way... But trading is about self-serving and the myth that it must be self-serving since it is at the cost of someone else (ie. zero sum). Then again, nobody cares to figure it out, they just quote others and state these quotes as the facts...

Say la trading vie...
MAK
 
Hi Spydertrader,

Thanks for the new chartscript.

(1) In the new script, you calculate AVERAGEDU by using (DU1+DU2+DU3)/3 (3 days),
but AVERAGEGAIN still by using (GAIN1+GAIN2+GAIN3+GAIN4+GAIN5)/5 (5 days). Why?

(2) AVERAGEDU:= (DU1+DU2+DU3)/3 is not correct if any of DU1, DU2 and DU3 is 0. We should first check DU1, DU2 and DU3 > 0.

-
qx04790
 
Quote from qx04790:

(1) In the new script, you calculate AVERAGEDU by using (DU1+DU2+DU3)/3 (3 days),
but AVERAGEGAIN still by using (GAIN1+GAIN2+GAIN3+GAIN4+GAIN5)/5 (5 days). Why?
More...

As we move into the summer months, seasonal volatility changes occur. As a result, I felt using the last three months volume numbers had a greater impact on Dry Up (DU) calculations vs volume which occurred six months ago. I neglected to note this change in the chartscript description. I appreciate you pointing it out. The GAIN variable applies more to rank than Dry Up. We still need a minimum five cycles in six months. As such, I did not alter the AVERAGEGAIN formula.

Quote from qx04790:

((2) AVERAGEDU:= (DU1+DU2+DU3)/3 is not correct if any of DU1, DU2 and DU3 is 0. We should first check DU1, DU2 and DU3 > 0.
More...

Yes, technically speaking, I should confirm the existence of volume. However, such a circumstance (where zero volume levels were recorded) only occurred once in three years within our Final Universe of Stocks. (For those interested, trading on TASR was halted for a few weeks last year.) Thanks again for pointing out an area of possible code improvement.

- Spydertrader
 
Quote from Spydertrader:

As promised, I have added the New Chartscript here. I have also attached a zip file containing the same information located in the linked URL (for those using Wealth-Lab Developer).

- Spydertrader
More...

Hey spyder, I take it that this script can be run as a scan like the previous Bruno R script?
 
I had a question about the new script also... I was looking at individual tickers for volume stats (LBDU etc...) and I noticed that the numbers between the V 4.0 script and the Bruno V2.0 were very different. For example, for MIND

Bruno V2.0: Lower Band = 26,972

Hershey Equities Rank v. 4.0.0: Lower Band = 40,484

Is there a reason for this significant difference?

Spyder, thanks for the new script, your hard work is much appreciated :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top