Do you realize that the what you are saying can be done with the 100 day moving average alone. The 200 adds NO information at all. What you said can be alternatively said as follows: the 100 MA is higher than what it was 100 days ago, and it is higher than 35% compared to what it was 100 days ago. Note now that the first part in your condition is now redundant, as it is implied by the second part. I do not blame you here, but moving averages are not understood at all. Make sure you do not spin weels, while thinking that you are moving very fast. The majority read a book or hear a talking head, and think they understood price action. First understood your tools. Verify what I wrote above, and see whether I am right or wrong. PM me if you want to know more about MAs.
The mode of the thread is asking for specific "hard code"rules , not pen and paper approach because that is subjective You are using the word "trend" but you don't have a hard definition...
So, the mode of the thread is asking those, who already did the work to define trend, to hand over to you their 'code' - thereby saving you the time of thinking for yourself. Thank you for the clarification. You saved me some typing. - Spydertrader
I already have linear regression as a worthy definition for a trend, besides your misplaced criticism,anything interesting to add, mister Spiderman ?