| Welcome Guest, please sign in to participate in a discussion. | Search | Active Topics | |
Registered User
Joined: 10/14/2005
Posts: 33
|
I've spent the last hour trying to construct a PCF for stocks that have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low.
I can get the low ok, but can't get the 5 day offset.
Going nuts over something simple.
Help appreciated.
Thanks,
Craig
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Not sure what you mean by "bounce up"
Try:
L5=MINL250.5ANDL>MINL250
See if it fits.
You can add: ANDC>C5 if you like.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/14/2005
Posts: 33
|
Diceman,
That did it - despite my poor description of the requirements.
Thanks,
Craig
|
|
Worden Trainer
Joined: 10/1/2004
Posts: 18,819
|
Chardison,
Here is how I would do it:
Create the following PCFs:
52-wk Low (5 days ago) and is the lowest
L5=MINL250.5 AND L5=MINL6
Above 6-day Low
L>MINL6
Once you create and calculate the above PCFs, please build the following EasyScan
WatchList (ALL STOCKS)
Price Per Share (limit based on your trading)
Volume 90-day (limit based on your trading)
Above 6-day Low (no limits needed)
52-wk Low (5 days ago) and is the lowest (no limits needed)
Save your EasyScan and enjoy the resulting WatchList of stocks that fit your conditions.
I would SORT the results of the WatchList by Price Percent Change 5-day to rank them by their post-low performance.
Here are two videos to review:
How to create a Personal Criteria Forumula (PCF)
Using EasyScan to find stocks that meet your own criteria
- Craig
Here to Help!
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/1/2005
Posts: 2,645
|
Craig,
Suppose
L5 = MINL250.5 = 100,
L4 = L3 = L2 = L1 = 10,
and
L0 = 10.01.
That would qualify as "a stock that bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low". I believe you did not intend that. Did you?
diceman,
Your PCF would also pass such a stock. I also believe you did not intend that. Did you?
Chardison,
Would such a stock be acceptable to you?
Thanks,
Jim Murphy
|
|
Worden Trainer
Joined: 10/1/2004
Posts: 18,819
|
Only Chardison can answer that.
Taking my sorting suggestion should throw that type of stock to the very bottom of the list.
- Craig
Here to Help!
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
bustermu
Quote:"diceman,Your PCF would also pass such a stock. I also believe you did not intend that. Did you?"
Not sure. Its hard to tell how much someone would
like an exact solution vs filtering with their eyes.
With limits we can make the scan more advanced.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/1/2005
Posts: 2,645
|
QUOTE (Craig_S) Only Chardison can answer that.
Taking my sorting suggestion should throw that type of stock to the very bottom of the list.
Craig,
My statement to you was:
"I believe you did not intend that. Did you?"
How is it that:
"Only Chardison can answer that."
Note: There is nothing to stop your sort from placing the stock at the very top of the list.
The point of my post was to point out that the scans proposed you and diceman may have some shortcomings that each of you would like to improve.
Thanks,
Jim Murphy
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/1/2005
Posts: 2,645
|
It seems to me that at least some price today should be above the 52 week low 5 days ago in order to qualify for:
"a PCF for stocks that have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low"
but neither of you (Craig or diceman) seem to think so.
I concede. Some stocks that trade below a 52 week low 5 days ago all day today may be considered to "have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low".
Thanks,
Jim Murphy
|
|
Worden Trainer
Joined: 10/1/2004
Posts: 18,819
|
I see your point. I made a change above.
- Craig
Here to Help!
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
bustermu
Quote:"It seems to me that at least some price today should be above the 52 week low 5 days ago in order to qualify for:
"a PCF for stocks that have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low""
Notice my post said:
"You can add: ANDC>C5 if you like."
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/1/2005
Posts: 2,645
|
QUOTE (Craig_S) I see your point. I made a change above.
Craig,
I am more bewildered than ever.
Suppose
L5 = MINL250.5 = 100,
L4 = L3 = L2 = L1 = 99.99,
and
L0 = 1000.
Why would such a Stock be disqualified from:
"stocks that have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low"
The statement:
"stocks that have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low"
does not seem open to such vastly different interpretations to me.
Thanks,
Jim Murphy
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 1,006
|
Try these two simple PCFs, they are not perfect but play around with the range selector to see if the results are what you are looking for.
1. Minimum Low 5 Days Ago as a % of 52 Week Minimum Low 5 Days Ago
Range Selector Value : Min to 5
100 * (MINL5 / MINL250.5) -100
2. Close as % of 5 Day Minimum Low 5 Days Yesterday
Range Selector Value: 6 to Max
100 * (C / MINL5.1) -100
Hope this helps
Winnie
|
|
Worden Trainer
Joined: 10/1/2004
Posts: 18,819
|
QUOTESuppose
L5 = MINL250.5 = 100,
L4 = L3 = L2 = L1 = 99.99,
and
L0 = 1000.
Why would such a Stock be disqualified from "stocks that have bounced up 5 days after a 52 week low"
I assumed he did not want a lower low after L5. If he is OK with a lower low after L5, I ask that he lets us know.
- Craig
Here to Help!
|
|
|
Guest-1 |