New Members: Be sure to confirm your email address by clicking on the link that was sent to your email inbox. You will not be able to post messages until you click that link.
The following may not be the best solution. This was done quickly. This was not checked carefully. Please perform due diligence before using. Here is what I have so far:
and [EMA(8, Close) > EMA(21, Close)] and [EMA(21, Close) > EMA(50, Close)]
and [Min(5,MACD Line(8,21)) < 0.0] and [Min(10,MACD Line(21,50)) < 0.0]
I still get confused sometimes about correctly interpreting the Min function. Is this saying that the MACD Line(8,21) during the last 5 periods had to be below zero at least once?
This scan was built like this because it seems unlikely that all 3 would cross at the same time. The 5 and 10 look back periods can be changed to suit your requirements. Please comment if you find any problems with this scan.
@alcerec, I'm not a MA Crossover person, but I think I like my scan above, and I wonder if you checked it out because it does what originally asked and more since it does not enforce the order of the crossover. It does exclude the new 3 x 8 crossover since this is new information. Looking at it, you may not be able to recognize it. If you look at the results, you would see it has the crossovers where order is not as important.
You got me thinking about something though: What is the merit about requiring the shorter-term crossover to occur before the longer-term crossover? Since MAs are lagging, I made the shorter-term crossover occur in a shorter range i.e. last. This change is reflected in the scan above.
Next, I would like to double check the order of crossovers at some point to see which produces better results.
Here is the scan I like best: EMA (3) x EMA (8) / EMA (3) X EMA (21) / EMA (3) X EMA (50) and[close>2] and [country is US] and [open is not close] [type=stock] AND [daily SMA(20,daily volume) > 40000] and[ Williams %R(30)> SMA (10, Williams %R(30))] and Volume > SMA(10,daily volume) *1.5]
Comments
and [EMA(8, Close) > EMA(21, Close)]
and [EMA(21, Close) > EMA(50, Close)]
and [Min(5,MACD Line(8,21)) < 0.0]
and [Min(10,MACD Line(21,50)) < 0.0]
I still get confused sometimes about correctly interpreting the Min function. Is this saying that the MACD Line(8,21) during the last 5 periods had to be below zero at least once?
This scan was built like this because it seems unlikely that all 3 would cross at the same time. The 5 and 10 look back periods can be changed to suit your requirements. Please comment if you find any problems with this scan.
You got me thinking about something though: What is the merit about requiring the shorter-term crossover to occur before the longer-term crossover? Since MAs are lagging, I made the shorter-term crossover occur in a shorter range i.e. last. This change is reflected in the scan above.
Next, I would like to double check the order of crossovers at some point to see which produces better results.
EMA (3) x EMA (8) / EMA (3) X EMA (21) / EMA (3) X EMA (50)
and[close>2]
and [country is US]
and [open is not close]
[type=stock] AND [daily SMA(20,daily volume) > 40000]
and[ Williams %R(30)> SMA (10, Williams %R(30))]
and Volume > SMA(10,daily volume) *1.5]
Gives many candidates that I like.
Thx Again