Man, this video came out too late. I thinkt the book was mostly a waste of time. It could have been summed up in those 8 steps without reading the whole book (although I can see how some of those examples may help some). Also in that criteria, there is no mention of VCP (Volume contraction phase). I guess you can create a formula for that, but it may weed out potential candidates if it doesn't adhere to it exactly. I would rather chart Avg Volume 50 and Avg volume 20 or 10 to compare volume.
Thoughts as to how this scan compares to your other scans Mr Bonde?
It also seems like rules 1, 2, 4, and 5 are redundant, and can be expressed as 1 expression for clarity purposes (sorry, I use stockcharts.com, so you would convert it for telecharts):
and [today close > [SMA(50, close)]] and [ [SMA(50, close)] > [SMA(150, close) ] ] and [ [SMA(150, close)] > [SMA(200, close) ] ]
Basically could have been said as "Today's close is greater than 50 day average, which is greater than 150 day average, which is greater than 200 day average."
Not trying to be nit picky, but it would have made more sense at first glance to explain it as such.
6 comments:
Man, this video came out too late. I thinkt the book was mostly a waste of time. It could have been summed up in those 8 steps without reading the whole book (although I can see how some of those examples may help some). Also in that criteria, there is no mention of VCP (Volume contraction phase). I guess you can create a formula for that, but it may weed out potential candidates if it doesn't adhere to it exactly. I would rather chart Avg Volume 50 and Avg volume 20 or 10 to compare volume.
Thoughts as to how this scan compares to your other scans Mr Bonde?
It is one of the ways to find momentum stocks. But it is just first step after that you have to find the VCP pattern
On the 3rd row of the scanning condition, is it correct avgc200>avgc200.25, shouldn't it be avgc200>avgc225 instead ?
Thanks in advance.
On the 3rd row of the scanning condition, is it correct avgc200>avgc200.25, shouldn't it be avgc200>avgc225 instead ?
Thanks in advance.
it is correct. it means the 200 day average is rising for last 25 days
It also seems like rules 1, 2, 4, and 5 are redundant, and can be expressed as 1 expression for clarity purposes (sorry, I use stockcharts.com, so you would convert it for telecharts):
and [today close > [SMA(50, close)]] and [ [SMA(50, close)] > [SMA(150, close) ] ] and [ [SMA(150, close)] > [SMA(200, close) ] ]
Basically could have been said as "Today's close is greater than 50 day average, which is greater than 150 day average, which is greater than 200 day average."
Not trying to be nit picky, but it would have made more sense at first glance to explain it as such.
Post a Comment