Here is another view that imho is relevent:- Not quite sure on some points raised on this..some indicators can be used to confirm another indicator therefore using a "positive compounding" effect. what should be used are indicators that confirm or deny different aspects. having an overload is however a real possibility, so should be avoided at all costs. but looking at one indicator for the sole purpose of it confirming (or denying) a second indicator and nothing else is a positive strategy which I use all the time. This is not an overload, just good trade management
The only way this would begin to work is for the indicators to not be positively correlated. I have seen a lot of charts with a stochastics and a CCI. Worse, they have similar settings. So your cci(10) confirms your Stochastics(14,2,3). Then your trade fails. So 50% accuracy with cci combined with 50% accuracy Stocs leaves the analyst 100% wrong.
what should be used are indicators that confirm or deny different aspects. -------------------------------------- This is sort of how I look at things. I know you guys are going to laugh but when I looked at how Cramer arrived at his better calls, I generally found he had three points of information that had varying aspects of their effect on a stock.
I'm trying to recall, it's been awhile, I only studied him to see f I should be like him and his methods. I know what it wasn't and that was price although that is not the way he lays it out. One was public but obscure information and the way he interpreted and applied it. He was looking for direct catalysts. Another was pairs, how one equity faired against another. How an unseemingly unrelated event could impact something else. The other I just can't think of at the moment, but overall he usually had three ducks in a row and bingo. And these three indicators weren't simultaneous but happened over a period of time.
My only experience with Jack Hershey is that he's great at killing threads with these long rambeling posts that don't address the topic at hand seem like random sentences from 10 different authors.
Jack has not mastered the art of adjusting language to fit his audience, however, his teaching are very solid TA. Channels Volume analysis 1-2-3 points Ranking instruments based on volatility. He does not give the grail to trading, which is proper pyramiding and proper risk management, but he give a good start to how to read the market. Jack seems to polarize a lot of people wherever he goes. What gets me is why these individuals bother to try to debunk him. He is not going to stop, and neither are his adherents. Its not like he has declared jihad or something
There are implications and inferences that I am doing something wrong. Certainly it has been proven abundantly that I cannot write. Thus, practically no one reads what I write. These non readers have every word I have written picked apart and use the appropriate quotes to "prove" that something can't be done and subtend it with statistically insignificant extremely focussed non scientific information. I escaped from the mantras of the financial industry's Conventional Wisdom 50 some years ago. The consequence, as Jerry points out, is that I use a broad based authority from many fields outside of the Financial Industry and its CW's and abundant myths. Most of what people read today was written well after my beginnings. My story is a uniquely colored one and has had many well known players appear and dissapear along the way. My indicators are uniquely tuned to deal with the facts of the realtionship of volatility magnitude to trend slopes (rate of change of price over time). The close of a bar has nothing to do with the time of a trade, either. By knowing the relationship of market variables (volume leads price) and using the P, V relationship in a non probabilitstic setting, I have stepped a great distance away from the Conventional Wisdom. I know the CW down cold and I know what others are speaking of when they contribute. Usually I wait 10 pages before I contribute. I represent, to many people who use inductive methods and follow the CW, a type of person who is a messenger. "Shoot the messenger" is a very good idea for most people regarding me. Science and using deduction exclusively is very different than CW and its sales and fee based inductive quasi system. Read each paragraph of TZ's post and find the "flaws" in each. See how, by not doing the "work" to learn deductively and thoroughly, a person winds up. Take another person who dealt with ideas and their verification. After editing my contribution, he reitierated his idea given freely, could not be backtested. The moderator removed my post; the OP edited my post of the test criteria and said what remained could not be back tested. I call this turn of events, humor ,simply because it is humor. In terms of TZ, he should check in with the SEC to see how they process reacords of significant traders and cite them for things they think traders are doing. The facts are and have been proven, that a trader's profile can look like something it isn't by the SEC standards. The people who were fined and who had to make statements in relation to my successes, where out of line including the SEC, for which they apoplogized for their ignorance. Ignorance is the word. If you are criticising someone as has been done here regarding me, you better check and see if you are an ignorant criticiser. The paradigm I use is out of the box in terms of CW and its myths. In those terms and standards, what I do is unbelievable and astonishing. That is not going to change. You CW people have a lousy standard based on inductions and betting on the future and stupidly predicting and depending on stupid prediction. I do not gamble, you do. The markets have no noise nor anomalies. Markets are huge huge repositories of capital continually offering and that offer is always available for the taking.