I'll have to eat my words here. Taking a closer look it does seem to come out a small loser your way. Better stick to my own stuff. Hard to believe any system could lose on a day like today.)
Chicken Thank you! First let me say that Rice University's "Connexions" OpenLearning site is excellent. I've been learning from Connexion's contents for several months now. OpenLearning, on the www, needs to be more wide-spread, organized, and technically savvy, imo. The page of the link you posted, has a "related material" link on the page (if you have the "related material" plugin) to... :-> Performance Analysis of Binary Orthogonal Signals with Correlation This is an excellent initiation to a subject, that fits perfectly, in my strategy & learning road map. A subject that I've perceived and not yet focussed on formally. So I thank you again. Also, while I'm thinking about it... Everyone who uses "TA", should know the reason why an "indicator" performs the way it does....Study the method, and study the math! ktm'r
I dont know specifically what jack had in mind with his use of the words "inside bar" so I used the commonly accepted definition. Additionally, a break below the low of any bar would probably be seen as a weakening condition like the IF1 IF2 stuff.
ok lets continue the learning process with the last level, level 4. now i'm pretty clueless on this, because to me, the way jack describes it....you could have a break out in your favor from the previous bar that goes for 2 ticks....then the retracement lvl would be 1 tick.... doesn't make sense does it? since that doesn't make sense, and we know that jack's objective is to provide sensible money making strategies... we know that there must be more to the story. if anyone has any more of jack's postings regarding level 4 and its application, please post.
Dan, what a great effort you are making. Fabulous! Yes, I still owe a pace and link discussion. I've gone through 1/3 of Jack's post and it still hasn't turned. Rereading alot of his stuff is turning out to be very enriching also... We do have some differences but those are somewhat preferential. MAK!
thanks mak for the vote of confidence. i kind of 'know' i'm on the right track, but the added voice helps too. heh would you classify today as low pace? certainly the range so far in the ym is a measly 30ish points. i'm being put long and short but strangely, it's not the kind of thing i would have used to call being whipsawed. even though i'm down $. the majority of the losses are quite small.
today's result, not bad in my opinion. considering the tight range. i am very very heavily leaning toward skipping the first signal of the day, the larger loss appears to be a result of syncing up. if i simply wait till that first 'trade' completes, and then take my entry on the next signal (say if the first trade would have been long, then the 2nd signal reverse short...is what i would take as my first trade. still want some more days worth of data to decide though.
here's my attempt on the ES - my xls is not quite as pretty as your's dan but concepts remain same. Nice job on your part Irl.
I cant help sticking my nose back in here again as there is something that bugs me about this whole concept. I cannot see how any system with exact rules requiriing no descretion can be successful once it is common knowledge. I suspect that back when Jack put this system out the market was very different. Anything that can be codified like that and computer traded would have run its course by now wouldnt it? I just instinctivly know that it cant be that easy. I think a mechanized system could work if youre the only one who knows it, but otherwise I dont see how it can.
how can a system that flows and follows the market ever be wrong? this system does not predict, nor does it react. (at least this is how i classify it) it simply goes where the market is going. that's it. i really have no fear of this becoming 'public knowledge' or whatever. reason 1:, probably as jack says 4 out of 5 people won't be able to do it., even if they program it, they'll do something stupid and change a rule that they 'think' is a good change and render it useless. what i've ascertained through observation is that this system naturally moves you to the right side of the market. don't doubt, just do. If what you do doesn't work, then throw it out. that's all. oh and reason 2:, the first post that i have record of mentioning the strategy was from 2000. I looked and found people making mention of it in '02...but they weren't getting supper results, i have a feeling they didn't piece together level 3 properly. I tested a period in '03 using level 2, and it was profitable. i am doing it now in '05 and it is profitable. all circumstantial evidence points to the viability of this idea. to have doubts at this point (from myself) would be unfounded. i guess i find it funny that you would embrace one of jack's methods but then dissavow another. why not test it for yourself? why would this have run its course? it's not based on some transient (here now, gone later) market dynamic...at least that i can tell.