Download software Tutorial videos
Subscription & data-feed pricing Class schedule


New account application Trading resources
Margin rates Stock & option commissions

Attention: Discussion forums are read-only for extended maintenance until further notice.
Welcome Guest, please sign in to participate in a discussion. Search | Active Topics |

Profile: 445485
About
User Name: 445485
Groups: Gold User, Member, TeleChart
Rank: Registered User
Real Name:
Location
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: Unsure
Statistics
Joined: Thursday, February 17, 2005
Last Visit: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:44:30 PM
Number of Posts: 2
[0.00% of all post / 0.00 posts per day]
Avatar
Last 10 Posts
Topic: cancel research on question
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:43:48 PM
Good eveing:

Yesterday I submitted a question regarding an equation. I kept working at the problem and found the answer. Screwy Worden mathematics. Please cancel the research.

(removed by Moderator)
Topic: custom MACD...probable syntax error
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:37:49 PM
Good morning:

I am attempting to write a PCF for a custom MACD indicator where I will get hits as the MACD line passes through in a downward direction through the trigger linewhich of course is the moving average of the MACD line. The PCF to accomplish this has three main components but to keep things simple I will only describe the first two.

Part 1. (XAVGC3-XAVGC6)> 0 AND....this works and in English assures the
difference in the three day exponential and six day exponential
moving average is greater than Ɔ'. Or the MACD is always
greater than zero (0).

Part 2. (XAVG(XAVGC3,4-XAVGC6,4)) > (XAVGC3-XAVGC6) AND....this doesn't
work. In English this part of the equation is to
assure the trigger line, the four (4) day
exponential moving average of the MACD line is
always greater > than the MACD line. I suspect
some syntax violation or bogus averaging taking
place. I have been working on the for three days
without success.

Please advise me where the problem is.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

(removed by Moderator)