Codifying SCT

Discussion in 'Strategy Development' started by Joe Doaks, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. The following post was removed from Journals, presumably because moderation did not think me serious. In truth, why should they? My satirical approach to the supposedly serious business of trading rankles ET. But my effort to codify SCT has in fact consumed many years of my waning life, so I will repost my findings here for the amuseazement of all. Apeologies to those 72 of you foolish enough to look at the originally posted chart. It hasn't changed.

    "It has long been a dream of mine to achieve the weath enjoyed by SCT traders. But I obviously am not as worthy, much less as smart, as they. Years of studying the complexity of the constantly evolving method would have driven me insane, were I not already. In my frustration I even came to believe that SCT was fraudulent. But despite my own obvious and numerous flaws, I still sincerely want to be rich. So I started from scratch assuming that SCT works, but is too complex for an idiot to comprehend it, and so an idiot will have to redefine it. Attached is my latest attempt. I am deeply chagrined that to get results even this bad I had to invoke volume. I call this the "PV Non-Relation", but more about that later. Suffice it to say for the moment that I now think that volume is so important that it may be possible to trade ignoring price altogether. Kindly consider the study at the bottom of the attachment. The studies above it are compressed because they are of historical interest only, representing iterative refinements along the way. The figure 31.19 is net NQ points after reasonable slippage and unreasonable commissions. Times are PT, because as most of my disassociates here know, I like to trade early in the morning to keep my afternoons free, so I trade West Coast time. I will present subsequent versions as they devolve. And should moderation or cynical readers think that I am not serious, I assure you that I am. Building wealth via the unlimited potential of pool extraction is no laughing matter. Best regards."
     
    • jd.jpg
      File size:
      39.8 KB
      Views:
      320
  2. Enjoying the nasty weather up there, mon frere?

    In truth, what I posted is the latest version of the hard-coded SCT system I am trading intraday. Of course it is so deathly dull that I still take minimum-wage scalps around it to keep from falling asleep. SCT WORKS! Just ask Ehorn. (Though how he coded it in 40 SLOCs I have no clue, I am up to 150 and still reiteratively defining.)

    Re your fruitless study, try what I did. Assume it works and prove it.
     
  3. 666, I eventually committed everything Jack ever posted to memory. So I outgrew the need for binders. As to channels, I routinely draw them on a one-minute chart for better "touch" accuracy. As to CRAYolaing, I use a computer that probably approaches the power of the first Crays, so I don't need to smudge up my screen any more. My epiphany with SCT came when I quit doubting it and decided to believe provisionally. Kind of like Sam Clemens' quip that "A Christian is a man who believes in what he knows ain't so." My reward was discovering the PV-non-relation.

    Since the philosophy of SCT is very Robin Hood, I would guess you are right about the linchpin of the recovery. Jack served in the Carter admenstruation, so he is probably a Demican.
     
  4. Shockie, don't forget volume. My SCT code without volume is 60 SLOCs and works indifferently. I needed 90 more SLOCs to handle volume cases. It doesn't yet match what the SCT cognoscenti claim, but I am getting there. And I am not convinced that 5-minute is the optimal charting period. There is a lifetime of research and specious posting before me. Ultimately, I intend to fully automate it so I can devote my full day to enlightening ET. That and figuring out how to spend all the money the generous limit order traders gift to me. Above all, the beauty of the complexity of the coded rules means that no computer short of God's own mind could backtest it. So were I to post it and ass-sert its validity, NOBODY could challenge me! Sound familiar?
     
  5. Hahahaha! Yuk it up, JJ! You won't be laughing after I get the code uptimized. And I gerontolotee that when I get get rich, you WILL see me in the media: "Who's that old geezer boarding his private Airbus with Anniston?", "Trading genius takes porno public with huge IPO!", "World's first trillionaire buys Greenland and turns it into global warming playground for the rich!"
     
  6. Great reference, 666. He goes on to say:

    "If a person grasps how the markets work and is able to reduce it to a mechanical process and use that process very successfully, then by the nature of that process of making money, it cannot be backtested."

    That inability to test is not a result of the mechanical process per se, but of the complexity of that process. For example, my SCT code so far has about 50 tests in it. The more tests, the less testable, haha!
     
  7. Lest this get too Chit-Chatty, herewith the perroformance of Codified SCT thus far today. Not bad for a nuthin' narrow range day.
     
    • jd.jpg
      File size:
      39.5 KB
      Views:
      127
  8. What? Do I have to superimpose channels and crayolas on the chart to get you to believe this is based on SCT first principles? I intend to do what Jack never could: prove that SCT works!
     
  9. Adding to my list of what I'll do when I get rich, I think I'll buy England (not the whole UK). Then look up Hitler's ideas for what he planned to do with it after Operation Sea Lion.
     
  10. Very good, JJ! You just have to repeat to yourself: "I believe! I believe!" Will Rogers was the first SCT advocate: "If it don't go up, don't buy it!" But I have never found 15-minutes to have much value. Maybe because it puts me to sleep. I still trade off of 1-second. But please advise if you find different.
     
    #10     Jan 19, 2009