Your goals are normal and reasonable, they are really all I care about for myself as well. Considering today the range on the ES was 16 pts but there were many up and down legs in between which could have been traded and 3X a daily range would certainly be physically POSSIBLE. I agree that certain strong trend days would certainly be near impossible, maybe even impossible, to hit that 3X quota. So...everyday....yes certainly hard to believe. But then again, all I care about is making good money which is easily done without coming anywhere near the 3X range.
Back to basics. Lines of code and scripts in the code is not what is on the table. Let is go that you do not have a handle on that. that part is prima fascia. Your goal is to prove things like: 1. Any concept you read from me is wrong. 2. The way I use concepts to trade is wrong. 3. The result of any trading I do doesn't make money. 4. I cannot reason through anthing in how trading works in any way. You have a big big target to throw darts at. To do any of these these things or to build with building blocks from one level to another to make me wrong, you have to code up testing (in any direction) that links these things to markets and probably use some sort of time series since money is made as time passes. Thus a big step for you may be to link entries and exits. Another pragmatic thing is this thing called money. Often money is used as a vehicle in trading. you may want, at some point, to begin to relate capital to all of this. In long term trends called Bull Markets the stocks you chose to test show that collectively they are going up. Slowly. My concept of scoring that you tested, thus, could have more 0's to 7's early in the Bull market and as time passes these stocks might be drifting upwards. PVT is used to trade cyclic stocks and scoring is a concept for evaluating cyclic stocks. You have often said that I do not qualify what I write so you have the right to apply it to anything you wish. Go do that. You say that often I add qualitfications to things I write after I have written them. You feel that this changes the rules for your efforts to make me wrong because it is not so easy to make me wrong. as you throw darts and I am using different rules, I feel it is great for you to emphasize that I am not doing, unqualified, what you are testing unqualified. Lets keep doing that as you miss your targets. My intermediate goals are to make money for others because of the econometric effects. This makes my long term goals work because I long term goal is to apply as much money as possible towards solving local problems all over the world. Your short term goal is to cut my work force and cut the capital applied by the work force by impuning everything you can. with respect to your eforts, you screw everything up badly so there is no proof that what I am suggesting is a good concept or apporach or method. Most people see that you are messing up. For me to turn this muddling into a plus for me, (I need to control your efforts to some extent. you are using our script so I know that is under my control. So far so good. We have not made the effort with you to introduce the nature of cyclic trading. You are testing non cycling stocks for the most part and you are testing in a Bull market as you have determined by the ratio of 0 to 7's and 4 to 3's without regard to the use of money. So if you are trying to hit the side of a barn (a big target, me) try to stand closer and when you do stop throwing handfuls of sand. Right now you are just building a sand pile. Follow trader28's example for a while. (Don't talk about trading and do searches) If you are protecting newbies then use newbie money and newbie displays to back test. Pick a newbie concept from PVT or SCT and backtest it. Almost ALL of PVT is scripted to make it possible for a newbie to have a universe with a click; to have a hot list with a click; to do trades with MADA rules that are defined and probably well scripted for many platforms. This is mechanical and will take you years towards the present from where you are stuck in the past. If you want to test scoring to prove that it doesn't work; then test the sequencing of the three variables on stocks that qualify for high velocity money making where scoring is used. don't build your expectations that it (your proving I am wrong) will work, though. Many many people have done what you may begin to do. Those who are trying to hit the side of the barn do not post videos of thir missing the barn, however. Search for these people and search for their failures to hit the barn. Form a secret society. If you can see how a newbie begins, then see how he gets better. See when he can affors a back tester. i like to see people trade PVT in the evenings and before work. then i like to see them have a year or two of savings so they can go full time and do more turns. they can pick up a day right off then two days and get down to 30 minute charts and the chart I posted that afforts 2 1/2 day trading. This is 100 turns a year with 10% per turn minimum. this is half the 5 out of 6 in six months 20% prior turns for any stock in the Universe. Do a backtest on how stocks which make the Universe fail after they are in it and people pick their next cycle to trade. The result you will get is known from forward testing. Do a test on stocks that people who are trading gaps ahead of gaps to see if that strategy for slush money is viable. We have the results from forward testing as well. Do a test on whether trading PVT long or short works best. We have the results from forward testing as well. To test you are correct in getting our scripts. You screw up putting the scripts into anything, however. Please pretend you are you as a newbie and you have some money saved up. Use that money to do PVT according to a business plan and a trading plan. Use 100% of the money divided into a minimum of four streams of capital. Always have at least three stocks rady to trade for every stream. Just be a beginner. All the stocks come from a universe (our script makes it a click in your coding). the batting order of the stocks in the streams is determined by the cycling (use the chart of the 30 minute volume to make "unusual volume" work for you on a platform of your chosing that has that capability. you are using all sorts of bullshit shortcuts you make up to replace doing the backtesting correctly. Years ago we asked to see your code. Now, you are saying to check out our script to see if it is correct. The script, when published, is correct. The purpose of the script is to enable traders so we publish usful script. When you use the script it has to be combined in coding that is bullshit free and shortcut free. This is just like SPM. It had bullshit in it and it had the wrong defaults in it so it did not work. Since you are unwilling to post your code and you are unwilling to work with people who know how to code; it is hard for us to work around the bullshit in your code to get a result. We have opposite goals. You want to stop newbies from using PVT so you back test in a fouled up way. Just as I feel it is a punishment to automate channels by posting script I feel it is a good idea for people to annotate channels by hand so they learn market performance. It is like teaching people to fish rather than handing out fish. teaching you to back test only seves one purpose. It prevents you and all newbies from mistakenly thinking what you do works. You, certainly, are not going to post any results which shows how well PVT works on beginner, advanced beginner, intermediate , advanced intermediate, or expert works nor are you going to post what annual results look like for 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, or 100 turns a year at 10% nominal.
So Jack: Why don't you post code or specific algorithm for this? Some of us would be delighted to code it up and settle this once and for all. I've spent hours trying to decipher your approach, but never could. Now I'm offering you the opportunity to be specific and get your concept validated. If you like, we'll start a new thread where the only content will be the algorithms, code and tests. What do you say?
Take a moment and got to pages 46 through 49 or the current futures. read the article. Note the ATS used to produce the results in the last columns for each day. note the denominator of the value is ATR or H-L. Note that the value 3x is not there. note that 10X or better is there. Note that 100% of the days it is 10X or better. Note that a very lousy test week was chosen meaning one that playe to your orientation. After reading it just stick to your guns. Do not consider the implications of trading at the level of the article. I read the article and could see immediately how to improve the ATS by making it more anticipatory. When you look at the ATS what can you imagine? Who knows. It is so far from your reality that it probably should have not been published in your opinion. Relax, you aren't going to ever have to stop traders in your shop from trading at that level....lol....
In hindsight it looks great, in real time there is far too much discrepancy, that is the Achilles Heel of this method. Anek
We agreed a couple of years ago to not go any further in ET or any archive or any invitation only forums to go beyond expert mechanical trading and what it takes to build the mind to do it. The 2007 syllabus was constructed to reach that goal and several times we adjusted the learning pace (slowed it down) to assure that the experiential goals could be met on each level of the six levels of trading. We added beginner internals as the course unfolded as a look back into advanced beginner to allow more structure in the system in support of process. In all we went through six levels of the algorithm over 12 months to build the system composed of a structure, process and results of the process. Now, iterative refinement, as a thread, exists for several purposes. It allows new players, it helps those who are acquiring knowledge at different paces and it serves as a review for those on advanced levels. Finally it assists those adding cars on their way and as they arrive at 50 plus cars in trading. I have followed the same path all my life with regard to copyrights, royalties, trade marks, intellectual property, and trade secrets. To that end, and with regard to trading, those decisions and actions were made long ago. Pragmatically, ET doesn't have the capability to do any of what you suggest in terms of IT. It turns out that those oriented to the CW cannot handle things like code and algorithms. It is largely the case that a mental wall of some sort screens out this paradigm's penetration into the CW labirynth. You are stating that you have the problem and for you in comes from not being allowed to participate by something (like a wall) that precluded your making any effort for three or four years. This just happened to you, apparently. As is known, the validation was a sweet experience. It plays at least ten times better than "The Predictors" I am told. There is no movie equivalent, either. The ABA validation of the IBM magnetic code used on all checks world wide was not even a close second validation moment. The Lake Placid hockey moment was close. In Tucson we dig dirt on Mars daily and have a beer. The template is something else. While not petafloppy it is on the mark as an extension of the human capability. The flow from concept to scaled up practice has many steps. The Paris based financial effort for LINUX doesn't compare either. In 2008, we are doing a little drilling down on skills acquisition for the mechanical and we are extending support to dealing with a greater diversity of markets. At some point it was announced that the algorithm and its pragmatic application works in all markets on any fractal. I feel that the trade that was shown recently did illustrate a little detail on what extracting the offer looks like in terms of performance validation. It was a blast getting there and I am sure that a lot of people who saw this and that probably figured out it was post validation at some point. David Boucher's ATS named Zig Zag David 1 also makes the point for his algorithm. I appreciate your thought and especially the offer. Years ago and on many different forums the same thing happened and several groups did form up to do this or that. I think the max intensity was in the late 70's with ISAGA and in a gaming context. Now, I feel the critical mass was achieved in the loose net of amateurs (mechanical trading) and I think that myself no longer being on point, solved the opportunity (problem is the old word for it) permanently.