jhenninger
63 posts
msg #77439
- Ignore jhenninger |
8/11/2009 12:03:46 PM
Hello all,
I currently run a scan to look for high volume "momentum" stocks that have displayed significant volatility, volume, and price action toward the end of the session. However, sometimes this scan can be quite lengthy and I am only really looking for those stocks that have displayed "continued momentum characteristics" and have managed to close near the upper/lower portion of the daily range.
So my question is:
Does anyone know of some simple syntax that I can insert that would accomplish this?
Thank you very much in advance,
Jon
|
dwiggains
444 posts
msg #77443
- Ignore dwiggains |
8/11/2009 2:05:14 PM
Hi
This filter I have used for quite a while
To add closing near the top .
To add closing near the bottom
Play around with this and see if it helps.
see ya
david
|
jhenninger
63 posts
msg #77447
- Ignore jhenninger |
8/11/2009 3:15:26 PM
Thanks for the reply David, I appreciate it.
Curious though, is there a different way to input the closing near the high/closing near the low syntax into a more user friendly way?
For instance, my filter is incredibly basic (because I don't want to be overly restrictive), and is as follows:
Show stocks where Close gained more than 4 percent over the last 1 day
and volume gained more than 50 percent over the average volume(60)
and average volume(30) is greater than 300000
and close is above 1.20
Depending on the results (which are obviously highly dependent on overall market conditions), I adjust the numbers above manually toward the final 30 min stretch of the session. My main problem is that sometimes it picks up a lot of stocks that have lost their momentum and are no longer near the highs or lows of the day (thus implying less of a probability of potential follow-through). My main goal is to somehow increase the efficiency of the scan by reducing those items. I have tried to attach your coding into my coding and I think basically ends up being 2 scans in 1 that is highly restrictive. Any additional thoughts on a way around this?
Thanks again,
Jon
|
jhenninger
63 posts
msg #77450
- Ignore jhenninger |
8/11/2009 3:29:19 PM
Actually, disregard the previous message. I was initially confused by the syntax, but think I have figured it out. I'm not much of a math-type/programmer person, more visual... ;)
Thx again..
|