One of my difficulties practicing the Seamless Continuous Trading method of Mr. Jack Hershey has always been my inability to properly analyze Volume Gaussians under conditions which to my watery and cataracty old eyes seemed to be ambiguous. In a dream this morning (I code in my sleep while others dream of the Daily Hottie) I came up with the solution. I trust that its interpretation is obvious. I believe that this ESignal study is so felicitous that charting volume itself is superflous, if not downright confusing. Comments on improvement of the presentation are most welcome, as this is a first rough hack at the code and charting format. Warmest regards to all in the SCT community.
Sorry, it is a bad habit acquired from people saying that they reverse engineered my codes by being able to scale off the numbers. I will post a larger example tomorrow night. Thanks for the suggestion. It is also my intention to compare slopes and turning points identified by this code to those posted in Iterative Refinement. That assumes that they actually post over there, which they have been unaccountably and unforgiveably lax in doing of late. One never knows when the next promising fresh-faced Nwbprop may be looking for trading salvation.
Comparisons can be made here begin here and may I say this is the largest chart you have posted in a long time which permitted me to see it without my bifocals and I thank you
You need to face two issues (these aren'T really problems (unsolvable things) but just concerns that scientist's deal with). 1. It is a good idea for a trader to consider the fractals on each side of the trading fractal. You have a chart that looks like it is relating to one fractal. 2. you have an issue that is common to many potential traders or portential coders: you are jumping fractals. To deal with these items, go to the site recommended elswhere. Also review charts of people who annotate volume in several fractals concurrently. For the pattern, there are four volume moves for three price moves. This means one price move has two vilume moves and the others are in a one to one correspondence. You begin the day picking off each volume move (good for you) with respect to advanced beginner trading levels. after four of these the correspondence of color becomes the opposite since at this time and in a different pattern (the same pattern but with the letters (B and R) interchanged) things are the opposite for dominance of the thing you are doing Gaussians for. Notice after this, you jump fractals. As I put myself in your mind set, I see you disregard market pace. If you didn't you would not jump fractals. Let us turn for a moment to the Gee Whiz expereince of BWolinsky when he first posted the most amazing annual performance of a method he lifted not only what he thought was the code but the NAME as well. This guy missed entirely the "other" factor of taking signals: as you pointed out recently elswhere: "it is a good idea to pass on signals that are not appropriate." This is the "other" side of the trading coin. You can google WWT to see this facet of expertise. Think of the lighthouse keeper. It was a foggy night and he was as vigilant as ever in taking care of business. He as you, does his business while sleeping as well. So I know you can understand why, when the fog horn failed to go off, he leaped out of bed and said (or as his wife would have said before she divorced him, 'exclaimed') WWT?????? He was acriphile (sp) to the end. So, at long last, begin to do what is required to do SCT. If there is a pattern and if there is a relationship of the variables and if fractals nest, then why is it so hard to get it? Once you "begin" to put the pieces together, by not being choosy but by being attentive, there are no anomalies nor no noise as the lighthousekeeper found out. Think about it, I'm 77 and I can go put myself in your place and I can point out the specific path you must follow to get to move forward. AND I lace my comments with humorous picutres to get you to shake loose a little on your persistant trying to escape from the pattern. you see that I use a template to simply revv across your illustration and I pick off all the causes and effects of your limited view. I am not making any negative comments: I am just fairly and objectively stating the MADA of your status. I look, I analyze. I decide to post my analysis which is right on. I act to support your process of becoming differentiated with respect to how the market operates. It is like driving a car once your mind is differentiated. Please consider how I can nail TZ's diotic pics with one sentence and an attechment that gives the next 20 trades in the order of their appearance the next day. What will it be like to know that you know volume leads price when it is important. A lot of the time trends continue and as they say "all is well". BUT, hypothetically speaking (and using the correct parametric measure), when all is changing, then you have to know that you know. You know that you know, because of WMCN if something has completed the continue part of the cycle. The something is "everything". Fix your foghorn. If there is no fog anymore; don't fix the foghorn; sell it to the Swiss coughdrop makers.
Criticism noted. I chart on a 26-inch monitor, so I don't notice it. As to Traders Laboratory, regrettably I must demur. I cannot in good conscience act in any way which diminishes the value of ET as a community of learning. I will bravely sling back any excrement the anti-SCT foule may unwisely lob my way. As an aside, I was not entirely candid about the inspiration of this code. I needed a tool on my one-second chart to represent volume surges that are much less clean than they are on the five-minute chart. A felicitous side effect of the one-second tool was indubitable, ineluctable, ineverything else proof that price leads volume. But I am saving examples for another time.
All that said, thanks for your reply. As always there is a golden needle in your haystack. I sincerely wish that everyone else could see that.
LOL... Just for the heck of it...and just for a short while....suspend your belief that price leads volume. Go to our lala land where anything is possible and find out what, how and why the market operates the way it does. Divide the cases into two subsets. See if you can get to a neutral bias. Lets say you do. Go far afield for you; trade SCT just for the heck of it. See why we do not spell out FTT. Lastly read a book from the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives entitled: "A Compendium of Ways of Knowing." subtitled: "A clear Mirror of What Should Be Accepted and Rejected". Notice that Western mind research is no longer a few thousand years behind. Learning to trade is a process. It is a process of bulding "differentiation" in the mind. Dig out "Putting the Pieces Together" And notice the 30 plus illustrations for position trading stocks. Notice there is a chart there for timing the markets. Notice it deals with volume AND the offset of volume leading price for position trading to make money. All I am suggesting is to let yourself have an experience that will allow you to move forward along your path. You may have gone out on a ranch and now you may be cutting the branch off. Monks do not do this. they know their trees at the monestary are sticking out from their roots thousands of feet above the valley floor. No one would hear them landing it turns out. Read in the booklet the word debate occasionally. SCT is after debating.
... your dream implementation seems unrelated to volume gaussians ... hence the first improvement suggestion would be to look up some basics