Sorry that you decided this way. You have always the option of ignoring the posts you're not interested in, and keep posting what you think is worthy to discuss. You don't have to read and even less to reply to what is noise for you. You could also ask the posters to stick to your journal's subject, or even ask the moderator to delete the posts that are irrelevant, but this would take to much of your time.
NPP, Just ignore all those lectures and negativities. Hope you change your mind and continue on. But if you don't. Here is a departing gift. I have modified my code to better matching you manual entries. I think we are getting there. (In one message, you said you are giving up automating it. Don't give up yet.) The code matched the two trades Today exactly. The first stoploss exit was a little late as TS can not stop loss at the same bar. The second exit, of course, I can not compare as you changed it manually. Here are some changes: 1. Even the first bar of the day can be thought as hi and lo 2. Fixed entry when there is new hi/lo but 5min already crossed over. Wait one more bar. 3. some fine tuning in when to call for the day. I think the code now is pretty close to what you do manually. (Of course that is if you don't change the stop loss discretionally ). As I said hope you change your mind keep this thread or other new thread going. However, if you don't, hope you find this little code sample helpful to you, as I did find this thread helpful to me. To me, automating and manually doing a strategy are not necessary either/or choices. Even you choose to trade manually, automating a method allow you to look at things more clearly, help you identify issues not considered before and give you some statistics to know the method better quantitatively. Good luck. If you would like to discuss the code privately, PM me. Oh, forgot, NO PM .
My GAWD, the retards have come and ran off NO PM again just like in his previous threads... Unbelievable...
No, it is similar to what I saw somewhere else: Someone claims to have a succesful method but it has not been backtested thoroughly and is based on too small a number of trades. And when it is put under the spotlight then the person gets disillusioned. Often the case is that there are a number of "hidden" details that have yet to come out of the woodwork (and this is often the difficult part to articulate) eg. pattern recognition build in or some momentum build in (eg. "when you see a quicker pricemovement") I have been following this thread to see what made it possible for NPP to have it working and me having very dismal results with the CCI. CCI is very deceptive, more often than not it looks good in hindsight and you wonder: "How did I ever miss this"? Personally I have abandoned the CCI. I think all involved have learned a lot from this thread and I want to thank NPP for disclosing his method. If you are still following the thread NPP: Good luck and don't give up, up and downs are all part and parcel of being a trader. vital-analitics
Trying to automate with rules is not a good way to trade for individuals. Markets change all of the time and thus hard and fast rules are generally no good. Notice that the market had already changed by the time the journal was created. I only have one hard and fast rule. "I don't lose more than 2 percent on any one trade or trade idea". The winners will be those who have lost the least. The rest is just looking at probabilities. This is not being negative, rather it is being constructively critical. One cannot be sensitive and also post here. The two don't mix.
I hope NPP returns even if its just once in a blue moon to ask questions of those that have shown a strong interest in the method especially if he himself will continue using the method and benifiting from the continued thread. (Can't imagine him not continuing interacting with those that showed a strong interest in the method via at least pm or email) Therefore, based upon the strong interest in this method...this thread shouldn't have any problems in continuing on its on two feet. With that said...NPP did state this was a new method and that he hadn't been using it too long. He also stated it needs improvements via his use of the phrase it'll require some refinement over the next few months. Simply, I was under the impression he started this thread to get help on improving the method because he knew from his backtesting results it didn't perform well in trend like environments. Hopefully nobody assumed he said it was well backtested, successful method and that he didn't want the method to be placed underneath a microscope. Now that the details of the method has been disclosed by NPP... Those that displayed a strong interest in testing it, trying to improve it will continue doing such and keep the thread active. P.S. Below is his first message in this thread. Mark
NPP probably just had a bad day. Kicking himself for raising the stop manually. So instead of gaining 8.25 points, got only 0.25 point. Just kidding.
Trading requires a thick skin and recording a journal requires an even thicker skin. taking a loss is not a reason to flee... Just have to trade past it and ignore negative posts..
I was not under the impression that it was fully backtested..... if I gave that impression then I apologize. I was only figuratively speaking from experiences elsewhere.... Sorry! vital-analitics