Why do you persist with your puny and laughable smoke screens? The analysis I did is a FACT, not an opinion, so you can't make it disappear with pixie dust. The P,V Boolean relation has been represented BY ITSELF on several occasions as a way to get "tomorrow's paper today" and I posted one such document in my reply to you already. What about that? Or the zillions of times Jack has extolled it and implied he has the keys to the kingdom in his elegant Boolean formulation? Why, then, didn't the turn from 0 to 7 ALONE provide at least some advantage in 5000 stock-years of testing, given that it's the cornerstone of Jack's methodology?
You have shown the distinct inability to follow even the most basic directions. I provided an easy opportunity (twice) for you to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt, your claims that Jack is full of shit. The opportunity required a simple yes or no answer. Instead of jumping at the chance to lay rest, once and for all, this nonsense, you avoid, dodge and blameshift. Rather than correctly prove your points, you'd rather cackle endlessly about faulty backtests which show a tangential relationship at best. Rather than provide data on your research so that others might confirm your results, you choose to argue the merits of debate tactics. Your behavior appears quite telling - at least to me. Clearly, you have no desire to seek the truth, and as such, you acted entirely as predicted. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. Now, feel free to engage us all with your clever turn of phrase. Continue to shout your famous catch phrases. And by all means, please post more of those nifty equity curves which have no more bearing on profitability than phase shifts of sub-atomic particles. I see no reason to continue the discussion with such intellectual dishonesty. hypostomus, I apologize for taking your thread off topic, and in the future, promise to refrain from any further contribution to your efforts here. Good trading to you all. - Spydertrader
Fare you well, Spydertrader. Please do keep in touch in one way or another about your adventures trading ES intraday. I would add that to Voltaire's dictum: "The only adventure open to the cowardly is marriage."
Wow, apparently your puny brain has become so ravaged by grape kool-aid that you're incapable of even understanding English. So let me type more slowly... Buying the 0 to 7 shift of the "P,V Boolean relation" and exiting 5 days later produced abysmal results when tested on 1000 stocks over five years (equity curve attached). So much for tomorrow's paper today! I hate to break it to you, but the "P,V Boolean relation" is anything but tangential to Jack. Here's one quote to make that point... there are a zillion more: What TA is about for me is all based upon the P, V Boolean relation and a corrolary to take care of one point to complete it. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=825456#post825456 I already posted my methodology but here it is again, to include the part about using YOUR latest WealthLab script for scoring. Anyone who follows it will come to the same conclusion. Even you. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115187#post1115187 I'll close with a quote from Wikipedia that reminds me of you and Jack and the dream team: The snake oil peddler became a stock character in Western movies: a travelling "doctor" with dubious credentials, selling some medicine â such as snake oil â with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence. To enhance sales, an accomplice in the crowd would often 'attest' the value of the product in an effort to provoke buying enthusiasm. The "doctor" would prudently leave town before his customers realized that they had been cheated. This practice is also called "grifting" and its practitioners "grifters".
P.S. Why don't you and Jack take me on in a real-time trading contest here on ET? That's the best way to settle everything. No more going back and forth... just let the markets sort out who can trade and who can't.
All else being said, the comments are largely irrelevant. 50 pages of alter egos and lines drawn in the sand. The backtest is largely irrelevant. I have emphasized that the framework for backtesting is understandable and useful a la Acrary simply because it approaches the market like a game of 21. The royal screwup is most do not consider that there are only 52 types of cards all with characteristics (ie. face values, color, suits). All else being saiid, all indicators and all analysis has value. The real line in the sand is HOW and WHEN they operate. After some brief analysis, I figured out how to make indicators work and as usual they require the user of the instrument to understand how it functions. Looking at the output is meaningless unless you understand how it derives the output. This is the royal screwup that i am finding in the invisible ink that spyder is addressing. There is the stress of backtesting. So tell us how folks were backtesting before the advent of PC's. If one cannot believe easy's results, then I will take the mirror approach and say your backtested results are photoshopped given that the argument that easy and spyder's forwardtested results are photoshopped. . There is the mention of the scoring but the screwup on the backtester is the difference between their sampling as opposed to streaming of the information. So this all sounds like BS. I know for a fact that Spyder, 100% understands the cycle scoring and how it broadly overlays for a given context (ie. fractal). He is not concerned with the numbers but rather the sequence of PV combinations. Breakouts (P) do not occur on low volume. Non performing companies do not perform (P) because masses do not take interest (V). Trends do not establish themselves witht he cycling of volume. Apparently in ET, this is all BS... What it all boils down to is screwups of understanding. A backtest on non-performing stocks immediately fails the case due to the failure to qualify quality stocks. Sweeping generalizations in and of themselves are not the issue, however, understanding the boundaries of how something is to be applied is. Just to be CRYSTAL clear, it is no secret that General Relativity fails at the particle physics realm as evidenced by black holes (ie. a massively small object given it's mass density). Physicists know explicitly where the limits of application are for General Relativity. In other words, run trajectories into a black hole and your screwed within the event horizon. Throw a sattelite into orbit and the application is remarkably precise. The largely nonsensical comment about the scoring is similarly screwed up when the boundaries of it's application aren't considered. I'm sure Newton and his crew would not have told Bohr and his crew where the screwed up. However, both would surely acknowledge where the boundaries of the knowledge were and weren't applicable... Context dear watson... CONTEXT! Candy ass MAK! PS... To the ghostwriter inquiring about V leading P. Even at the finest level, PV is CRYSTAL CLEAR on the DOM... Look at the size values. That size number has to reach zero before you get your new P value. Try to backtest it. You will not find any ordinary program to backtest it because the software writers have not figure it out yet. It is a dog chasing it's tale because software developers do not develop it unless there is demand for it. So that DOM number and it's sizes get's filled BEFORE you get a new P. Filling happens two ways, with V or with anti-V (ie. inventory being removed). If you watch carefully those fake bids, they reappear elsewhere for very common sense reasons as opposed to the percieved deception that the majority believe. Thus, it is irrefutable to have a new P before you had any V. Check your tape. This is the rule with few exceptions on your tape. Check the 40,000 or so ticks you see on your ES T&S. Also not that your T&S has also changed since ticks are no longer individual transactions but collections of transactions. In other words, an order of 253 contracts is likely to contain a dozen and even dozens of order which so happened to execute at the specified tick value... You can pull up the globex memo on "tick aggregation" that was sent around late last year...
It was only with the greatest restraint that I resisted a snotty retort. I will get back to you after RMH with a measured response. Gotta go prep for the day.
The backtest was done on a method that had been ballyhooed as providing "tomorrow's paper today," using Spydie's latest scoring routine on 5000 stock-years of data. So what's not relevant? The fact that I didn't apply all the conditions that were written in hindsight on the document by the A Team in secret invisible ink? As for quality stocks, all 1000 were S&P stocks, so there wasn't a lot of junk in the mix. And if anything, the backtest was FAVORABLY BIASED due to survivorship bias. As a side note, I see a lot of Jack in this post. Did he write any of it?
Mak comes forward to rescue JH from a bad backtest. When I posted the horrible results of the 30 min bar break out , Mak changed the rules in an attempt to improve the backtesting results from the very clearly stated rules JH laid out and which backtested and forward tested very poorly. In fact one poor schmuck Dantheman trod down the 30 min bar breakout path for awhile before concluding that it wasnt going very well. Of course this debate could be easily ended with a single execution report from a studied Hersheyologist making 2-3X the daily range in the ES with beautiful bar extreme reversals.