It is expected, but probably not what you would expected In the context in which it is used.
The rule is just checking that there are 2 consecutive closes above the entry bar's open. In both cases, that occurs.
What anyone would probably expect given the context is that the consecutive count starts on the entry bar. We can look at it, but given the generality of the Qualifier blocks, I'm not sure if that could be changed.
Edit: ----
Also, I just noticed that the Description is backwards - it reads, ".. at bar before entry" when "Take Bar Before Entry" is not checked. And, when checked, it reads, ".. at entry bar".
The description is wrong (backwards).
The checkbox is correct.
The rule is just checking that there are 2 consecutive closes above the entry bar's open. In both cases, that occurs.
What anyone would probably expect given the context is that the consecutive count starts on the entry bar. We can look at it, but given the generality of the Qualifier blocks, I'm not sure if that could be changed.
Edit: ----
Also, I just noticed that the Description is backwards - it reads, ".. at bar before entry" when "Take Bar Before Entry" is not checked. And, when checked, it reads, ".. at entry bar".
The description is wrong (backwards).
The checkbox is correct.
QUOTE:
The description is wrong (backwards).
Nice catch.
Thank you for your response Cone, but I still don't understand. I don't see how 2 closes are greater than the entry bar's open (or prior bar to entry) on either one of those examples.
If we compare the close against the open of the prior bar to entry then (from my understanding) it is 0 for both, and if it is the entry bar's open then just the entry bar itself should count. Neither should have been triggered as I understand it.
If we compare the close against the open of the prior bar to entry then (from my understanding) it is 0 for both, and if it is the entry bar's open then just the entry bar itself should count. Neither should have been triggered as I understand it.
At the end of the entry bar, the rule checks if the last 2 closes were above the entry price. In both cases this occurs, which triggers the sell at market on the next bar.
Does this make it clearer?
Does this make it clearer?
I still think it isn't working. With the option checked so it should start evaluating from the entry bar. This I believe should give me an exit after 2 positive closes correct?
But the exit doesn't seem to be firing:
The option does do that, but as I said the description is wrong right now. Since the option is not checked in your example, it's not referenced to the bar before entry.
I reran it with it checked. The other exit seem to be correct now but there are other that don't seem to be working. I believe it isn't always taking the open of the entry bar but rather the prior bar open instead.
The point I tried to make in my first post is that the test starts on the entry bar. You're testing 2 bars immediately starting on the entry bar, and, you'll be comparing the "Price" to either the "Entry Bar's Open" or to the Open on the bar before the entry bar if that option is checked.
Thank you for being so patient.
So I understand the checkbox:
- checked - references bar prior to entry bar
- unchecked - references entry bar
It's the Condition that is confusing to me. In my example above (Close > EntryBar's Open) I believe the condition loop index should change.
- unchecked - Close is actually reference Close[1] not the Close[0] current close
- checked - the Close reference makes sense and is Close[0]
So I understand the checkbox:
- checked - references bar prior to entry bar
- unchecked - references entry bar
It's the Condition that is confusing to me. In my example above (Close > EntryBar's Open) I believe the condition loop index should change.
- unchecked - Close is actually reference Close[1] not the Close[0] current close
- checked - the Close reference makes sense and is Close[0]
QUOTE:It's doing both because you added the Qualifier "For 2 consecutive bars".
Close is actually reference Close[1] not the Close[0] current close.
On the entry bar "0", it tests Close[1] > Open[0] AND Close[0] > Open[0],
where Close[1] is the Close of the bar before the entry bar.
Again, like I said in my first answer, the 2 consecutive count starts immediately on the entry bar, not on the next bar like you would expect.
Last question on this topic (I promise).
I'm trying through building blocks get two positive closes (i.e. close is greater than entry price). They don't need to be consecutive. Is this correct?
One suggestion to the Genetic Evolver would to be able to specify blocks (like the exit on my first question) that would be included in the search. It would make the tool much more useful.
Thanks again for your time!
I'm trying through building blocks get two positive closes (i.e. close is greater than entry price). They don't need to be consecutive. Is this correct?
One suggestion to the Genetic Evolver would to be able to specify blocks (like the exit on my first question) that would be included in the search. It would make the tool much more useful.
Thanks again for your time!
It's not going to work. Currently there's no way that I can see using the blocks to make these "since the entry bar" determinations. It think it would take a new set of specific rules.
QUOTE:That's just "Indicator Compare to Indicator" with the "Indicator Symbol" Qualifier.
Second I'm trying to create a condition that is the VIX[0] <= VIX[4]
I prefer using the SymbolData indicator here ...
Your Response
Post
Edit Post
Login is required