Phrases combined without AND or OR

Login or Register

Please login or register in order to view and post in the Forum.

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
JeremiahBerndt
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 11/06/2018 - 11:00
Phrases combined without AND or OR

I have a trading rule setup where different phrases are all combined with AND, except I left AND out in one of these instances and it is still a complete, executable rule. Here is the relevant part of the rule:

HI>=(PROF#2-0.05) AND
(HI<=(PROF#2+0.05)) AND
(HI>MA) (PROF#3MA) and (PROF#3

0
cpayne
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 03/30/2009 - 00:00
What is your question?

I wasn't clear what your question was...however...

(HI>MA) (PROF#3MA)

That is invalid.  What exactly are you intending to do with this syntax?

JeremiahBerndt
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 11/06/2018 - 11:00
syntax

Sorry, I have no idea what happened there, half my question and half the syntax somehow got deleted somewhere along the way.

in this set of phrases for a trading signal, how is it possible that the phrases would be complete without AND connecting all of them? I have accidentally backtested systems where I forgot to include AND between phrases and sometimes gotten interesting results. I am just wondering what is happening between those closed phrases if AND is not applied. Thanks

(HI>MA) AND
(PROF#4(PROF*1.005))

PS. Now that I am previewing this forum question before posting, it looks like it is cutting off part of my post from the time of writing to posting. And also altering the syntax slightly... very strange. File attached

cpayne
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 03/30/2009 - 00:00
PROF(PROF)

I don't think this syntax...

(PROF#4(PROF*1.005))

Is going to give you what you're expecting.  What exactly are you trying to do with this phrase?

JeremiahBerndt
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 11/06/2018 - 11:00
syntax

Did you see the second part of my post? It is not letting me post the syntax as I have it written. It is strangely rearranging it... Look at the screenshot I attached. It shows the syntax as I have it written and it shows the result of the post after I send it.

cpayne
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 03/30/2009 - 00:00
Check Button

You can always click the "Check" button at the bottom of the RTL window.  That will give you details on how IRT is processing the syntax.

JeremiahBerndt
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 11/06/2018 - 11:00
syntax

Sorry, I feel like I'm not explaining it or my message isn't appearing...

Do you see the screenshot I attached a minute ago? If so, the area I circled in red is the syntax I wrote in the chat box on this forum. Then, the syntax that the red arrow is pointing at is what appeared in the forum post after I clicked "Submit." In other words, there is something very strange happening with the forum posting itself. My syntax has checked fine in RTL each time. When I copy and paste that same RTL syntax into this chat box it appears fine again. However, in the last step, when I click submit on this very forum post something weird happens and it is literally changing the syntax or my writing from what I had actually written.

cpayne
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 03/30/2009 - 00:00
Check Button

Yes, I understand. And I can see your original syntax.

But if you want to see how IRT is processing your syntax (regardless of what it is)....hit the Check button and it will show you the order of evaluation.

cpayne
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 03/30/2009 - 00:00
Block Quote

Maybe try the Block Quote tool (or the Source button) when pasting in code from RTL so it doesn't adjust it...

JeremiahBerndt
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 11/06/2018 - 11:00
syntax

Ok, I'll go ahead and try it again

"(HI>MA) AND"
"(PROF#4<HI) AND"
"(PROF#2>(PROF*1.005))"

With that, what is happening with phrases like this that are not being joined with AND? I group most of my phrases with parenthesis and it seems like in a normal equation two terms with back-to-back paranthesis like this would be multiplied together. Is that RTL would interpret this if the ANDs were removed?