And if you're unsure of whether or not your algo is loosely or precisely defined, spend some time coding it. My Oh My, you'll discover in no time at all why you struggle to make money when your trading plan has rules that start out like this, "After two really wide bars..." or this, "After price has gone really high...", or this, "If conditions are choppy..."
No. Dbphoenix was always very coy about whether SLA was discretionary. Sometimes he seemed confused on the meaning, indicating the difference between mechanical and discretionary was automation. As zbestoch illustrates, that's not it at all. A mechanical system can be traded manually just fine and prior to the advent of computers, that is the only way they were traded. Also db liked to hint that SLA could be automated, depending on the trader. In other words, once a specific trader turned the loosely defined algorithm known as SLA into his own precisely defined algorithm, then automation was possible. Left unsaid was how the highly chart-dependent SLA could be so programmed.
I'm not a programmer so I can't say how, but Bulkowski tests chart patterns through programming so I reckon SLA would be possible.
SLA is full of discretion and ambiguity, you can accentuate all the good things, like developing a plan, etc, all you want but at the end of the day imnho it's all a piece of shit.
I think a lot of the SLA hate is more about people's disdain for the teacher rather than the method. DB was so full of himself. Anytime there was a big move in the market he would either claim to have been in on it or would start chastising students for not being in it. He claimed credit for market calls that he never in fact made. He was eager to goad others into making live calls or bets, yet was unwilling to do the same himself. He was always posting perfectly marked hindsight charts giving an impression that this is all oh so predictable and easy. People see that and peg him as a Monday morning quarterback who doesn't actually trade.... and then the rotten tomatoes start flying at him.
I would say so. To the extent that a loosely defined algorithm lacks exact parameters for entry and trade management, it is discretionary. Hill explains it very well in chapter 8 of The Ultimate Trading Guide. I don't follow. An algorithm is either precisely or loosely defined. If it is loose in its parameters, then it should be viewed as untradeable unless and until one determines and defines the exact parameters under which it is to be traded and how the trades are to be managed. Trading a loosely defined algorithm is almost a certain path to ruin - and there can be no escaping that fact. Probably as good a "fact check" for one's system or method as any.
LMAO! Not you!! Someone I met through twitter and we chatted on skype for ages and he DEFINTELY has an EDGE! (and I don't mean 'money management! lol ) Never seen calls anything like it. At least now I know it's possible, but I still have no idea how he does it unfortunately. Could be insider info for all I know!