wrong results with simple moving average rebound screener

Forums ProRealTime English forum ProScreener support wrong results with simple moving average rebound screener

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • #47971

    Hi,
    I have been using this very simple screener for a while to look for stocks in uptrend rebounding on the 50 days moving average. It was actually working until I started to obtain also values below the moving average as in the file attached. Cannot find on what I am wrong.
    This is the screener code

    and attached you see the file with one of the stocks I get: there are also a few closes below the 50 day moving average when I put the condition of the last 50 closes being above it.

    thank you

    #47983

    This is odd, your code should work correctly. On the NASQAQ stocks list, I do not get any result right now, do you still have that problem this morning?

    #47989

    yes … i keep on getting results below the moving averge.. especially the most recent ones

    #48001

    Do you have live subscription to NASDAQ Stocks list? Still don’t have any results in my screener window today for this code. Do you?

    #48077

    have these results today

    and they apear to be correct

    this is weird because yesterday I got completely wrong results with the same code

    #49485

    About this issue, I heard that it was a problem in Daily timeframe only and it has now been fixed, do you agree?

    #157675

    Hi,

    I see this is an old post but I think I’m seeing a similar issue in that ProScreener returns different values of EMA than what is actually on the chart.

    Doing some tests I see that ProScreener thinks the EMA200 is ~1.5% lower than what it actually is.

    Did you resolve your issue and does this sound anything like the same thing?

     

    Thanks.

    #157686

    Your problem is not related, a 200 periods EMA needs more than 254 bars to calculate, which is the history limit of ProScreener, therefore the value may differ. I suggest you use an arithmetic moving average instead, SMA200 is ok.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #157797

    I see, that makes sense.

    Thank you.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

Create your free account now and post your request to benefit from the help of the community
Register or Login