Jack, why is it important to exclude non RTH? What I mean is is it essential for the continuity of the sequences?
This exclusion has a basis. Market rules of operation depend upon the characterisitcs of the market. First of all "rules of operation" means HOW and WHY the market operates. Once this set of logic is in place the potential trader has the opportunity to go further in the development of his system for the extraction of the market's offer. The HOW and WHY of a market allows the potential trader to get to "knowing that he knows". If a person knows that he knews all of the time, then he trades just like a person drives a car to get from A to B. RTH for an instrument can be used to determine all of the above. the other hours in between are very different for that instrument. as a matter of fact, if will not be possible for you to determine that the instrument has the same character during this time that it does during RTH. Cetainly, if you can characterize an instrument by looking at 24/7 and get no character change, then go down that route. By only using RTH and degapping between RTH's a person comes up with an instrument character that lends itself to a complete modelling and development where there are no flaws nor any noise nor any anomalies. What is gained in this orientation is great great advantage for taking the market's offer on any fractal in any market as long as there is liquidity. Off hours is where liquidity is most likely sacrificed and therefore the model is also sacrificed. By looking at various trading strategies, it can be seen that the degapping is a strategic advantage. This is an "exact science" thread and both items I spoke of (degapping and eliminating non RTH data) are pertinent to the development of trading systems. It is turning out that most people do not work in terms of systems. What seems to replace the systemic orientation is either greed or fear based systems. One of the neat aspects of doing system modelling and development is that both greed and fear aspects are definite measures of design and development failure and misorientation. Most people are not automated to any extent. For those wo are using automated degapping, you usualy get to see clearly the platform shortcomings with respect to automated degapping. This is just a consequence of the ignorance of programming and/ or the commercial management of the platform.
Continuity of "sequences" for me means all sequences without exception. Under "exact science", is where it is possible to examine rigorously all the various orders of events. Probably one of the most important aspects of a system is the interlocking nature of all the parts. This also explains all aspects of the functionality of the parts. System failure is as much a concern of handleing the parts and the parts themselves. Previously I tried to explain the source of the befuddlement of the computer scientists who do not use "exact science", apparently, from what they say and how they say it and how their products turn out. Our focus here is the close of a bar and the open of another bar. Matching the open to the close is "degapping". With respect to the display, there are usually shortcoming and difficulties that have to be handled manually, still at this point of platform development. Orders of events (sequences) are cast in stone. This is a consequence of the interlocking nature of all the parts. Most potential traders do not get any aspect of intentionally interlocking stuff puposefully. Two example are redneck and logicprof. They do not deal in exact science in the first place so when they interrelate things it is NOT done in an interlocking sense. PEP and its applications, howevr do use interlcking in the "exact science" sense. Developing a non systematic sets of rules to trade by is very common and the "interlocking nature" of markets is taken off the table right then and there. NOT sacrificing continuity is at a "principle" level in the hierarchy of market system logic. It ranks right there with using gerunds in the core of the system. We just heard tha market highs and lows occur after closes and before opens a few posts back. Contradictorarily, I suggest degapping and that continuity is maintained. In exact science terms there is not debate and what takes debate off the table is using the Scientific Method in a process of deduction.
Is that what you were thinking when your NTES trade went south right after you put it on? Did "the precision of science" help you predict your "turning point of a lifetime?" <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2592993> <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2770859>
Trading is NOT an exact science. That's why it takes so long to "Get it". And why most intelligent people never get it. An acute mind demands precision in word and action. The market is not precise. But rather, "good enough". For lack of a better term
i checked this out with Freestockcharts.com. It does provide only RTH. But i still can`t see the big difference between RTH and non-RTH. Only opening gap maybe. i think i can put the things togethere regardless of RTH or non-RTH.
Trading is like heisenbergs uncertainty principle in that you cant know everything that is going on with a high degree of accuracy. You cant know who has their finger on the trigger to sell if they are getting nervous, if someone is bluffing or not with a large order and getting ready to pull it as soon as you place your order, how many HFT computers are jumping ahead of you, or if someone is getting ready to make a large buy order because the stock has dropped enough. You really just never know who or how many people are trading on fear & greed. The best you can do at trading is find the tools to put the odds in your favor so that over time, you make more than you lose, but just like counting cards at blackjack, sometimes the cards can go against you. Nobody has a 100% win rate in trading which is why its not an exact science.
Jack, I'd like to ask you a few questions if I could and if you could be direct and concise it would be appreciated. I understand that your exclusion of trading outside of RTH has a basis but . . . "By only using RTH and degapping between RTH's a person comes up with an instrument character that lends itself to a complete modelling and development where there are no flaws nor any noise nor any anomalies." How can something be "complete" by omitting a segment of a specific market's continuity? How can any "problem solving" be accomplished if all of the data necessary to the problem isn't intact? "This is an "exact science" thread and both items I spoke of (degapping and eliminating non RTH data) are pertinent to the development of trading systems." How can anything be "exact" when regular segments of the data set are discarded like unwanted puppies? "Continuity of "sequences" for me means all sequences without exception." Without exception . . . except with the exception of non RTH trades . . . right? "Under "exact science", is where it is possible to examine rigorously all the various orders of events." All various orders of events . . . except those that lie outside of RTH . . . right? "Probably one of the most important aspects of a system is the interlocking nature of all the parts. This also explains all aspects of the functionality of the parts." All of the interlocking parts except those that interlock to those outside of RTH . . . right? "Orders of events (sequences) are cast in stone. This is a consequence of the interlocking nature of all the parts. How can all sequences be "cast in stone" and interlocking yet you feel the need to disassemble them to create your trading environment? "Two example are redneck and logicprof. They do not deal in exact science in the first place so when they interrelate things it is NOT done in an interlocking sense. First, the nick is ProfLogic. Second, what I deal in is 100% pure raw unadulterated trading data. I do not manipulate my trading environment and I damn sure don't arbitrarily omit segments of the data because I have this feeling that anything outside of RTH is "unworthy" or "noisy" so it's easier to summarily dismiss it simply because I'm too old to investigate it and learn something new. "We just heard tha market highs and lows occur after closes and before opens a few posts back. Contradictorarily, I suggest degapping and that continuity is maintained. In exact science terms there is not debate and what takes debate off the table is using the Scientific Method in a process of deduction. So if market highs or lows occur during non RTH times . . . you ignore them? I'm disappointed Mack . . . oh sorry, jack. I totally understand "how you trade" and "why you trade" what you do. As I stated once before, I even when out of my way to attend one of Spyder's get togethers to get a better handle on your view of your market environment. It is a segmented system, it is not a complete system. I extract profits from markets during all operational hours not just during RTH. I'm not belittling your method because I've seen it work but do not say what I do is not exact when you have never bothered to take the time to "see" what I do. Each time you have made a comment on my trading environment you have been dead wrong. Just like you are dead wrong about the trades that occur outside of RTH.