jmahon01
19 posts
msg #45965
- Ignore jmahon01 |
7/19/2006 11:17:28 AM
Still trying to build and fine tune filter whereby I am wanting to select stocks which fluctuated by 10% in last 15 days OR fluctuated by more than 5 points in last 15 days. As stated in previous post responses ..... guess the OR clause has not yet been integrated into SF. So, was trying to do the workaround ..... but keep getting syntax errors . Here is the current clauses I am working with ..... can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong ???? Thanks/JPM
set{10hi,high 10 day high}
set{10lo,low 10 day low}
set{10range,10hi - 10lo}
set{10ratio,10range/close}
set{OR,count(10ratio greater than .10),1}
set{OR,count(10range greater than 5),1}
OR equals 1
|
nikoschopen
2,824 posts
msg #45968
- Ignore nikoschopen |
7/19/2006 12:04:34 PM
There's a bug in ure filter:
set{10hi,high 10 day high}
set{10lo,low 10 day low}
set{10range,10hi - 10lo}
set{10ratio,10range/close}
set{OR,count(10ratio greater than .10),1} ◄— syntax error!
set{OR,count(10range greater than 5),1} ◄— syntax error!
OR equals 1
______________
First, You may not use the same user-defined variable in more than one statement: "OR" is used in both lines 5 and 6.
Second, when using the "count" function, you must define the parameter inside the paranthesis [ie. count(abc is greater than xyz,1)]
|
jmahon01
19 posts
msg #45970
- Ignore jmahon01 |
7/19/2006 12:20:45 PM
Thanks for responding Niko .... OK, so I understand the second point you have made ..... and how I need to do the parens ..... but how can I get around the first point ??? Essentially I want to select the stock on an "either/OR" basis. Either when the range is greater than 5 .... OR when the ratio is greater than .10. Thanks gain for helping/JPM
|
nikoschopen
2,824 posts
msg #45971
- Ignore nikoschopen |
7/19/2006 12:56:00 PM
set{OR1,count(10ratio greater than .10,1)}
set{OR2,count(10range greater than 5,1)}
set{OR,OR1 + OR2}
OR equals 1
Now that wasn't too difficult, was it? ;)
|
maxreturn
745 posts
msg #45972
- Ignore maxreturn |
7/19/2006 12:58:09 PM
If I'm not mistaken Niko you would probably want to state "OR above 0". The reason is that both conditions may be true in which case OR would equal 2.
|
jmahon01
19 posts
msg #45973
- Ignore jmahon01 |
7/19/2006 1:06:41 PM
Thanks Niko and MAX .... appreciate the help ... sorry to be a pest ..... think also could use "OR >= 1" .... Right?
|
nikoschopen
2,824 posts
msg #45974
- Ignore nikoschopen |
7/19/2006 1:48:33 PM
maxreturn,
In that case, it would be considered "Both" rather than "Either/or", which jmahon01 has explicitly asked for.
|
jmahon01
19 posts
msg #45975
- Ignore jmahon01 |
7/19/2006 1:54:52 PM
Hey Niko and Max .... me again. I put the logic in place we ended up with but when testing it .... I get some results I don't understand. Appreciate it if you could help. Here's the filter:
set{15hi,high 15 day high}
set{15lo,low 15 day low}
set{15range,15hi - 15lo}
set{15ratio,15range/close}
set{OR1,count(15ratio greater than .10,1)}
set{OR2,count(15range greater than 5,1)}
set{OR,OR1 + OR2}
Show stocks where OR >= 1
Question surfaces when I alter the last "OR" clause :
when I do "OR above 0" or "OR >= 1" the selection yields 506 stocks for either
but when I do "OR equal 1" the selection yields 757 stocks
My question is: Shouldn't the "OR equal 1" search have yield a LOWER number vs a HIGHER number ???
Appreicate any thoughts/comments you may have. /JPM
|
jmahon01
19 posts
msg #45977
- Ignore jmahon01 |
7/19/2006 2:14:24 PM
Niko/Max ...Ignore my last. Don't know why .... but NOW when I do the "equals 1", I DO get the lesser selection which I had expected (200+). Maybe my PC system is not working right <frown>. Thanks again for your help.
|
maxreturn
745 posts
msg #45980
- Ignore maxreturn |
7/19/2006 3:28:46 PM
Niko, beg to differ. Why would you want to exclude any stocks that met both conditions?
|