i love the great information here............can the channels lines be that simple for entries and exits? thanks grob and maki
Trader666, as a former avid backtester, please keep in mind that your backtesting software will make certain assumptions that may not apply in real time. This could certainly affect your results. Also, a very slight yet significant caveat is that Jack encourages the use of the SLOPE of the indicator. This a visual exercise that a computer cannot duplicate. This is critical in the Bruno R setup. Now, we are speaking of futures I believe. Okay, a rocket is when the slow line breaches the 80 on the 14, 1, 3. Did you make sure that you are coming out of dry up when this happens? If you take a market trade on a 20000 vol bar, you just entered on a peaking volume bar. Not good. So you enter, volume does not sustain, and you take a quarter point or more loss. This is what the computer will do for you. What you should do for yourself is observe that the breach of the 80 line on the slow line has occured. Is price improving? Is the macd postive? Is volume coming out of dry up? No? Wait for the entwining! The fast line will dip below the slow line for a bit, and then recross. Both will be above the 80 line. Now re-evaluate. Is the price improving? Is volume coming out of dry up? Okay, now enter at market. Draw you channel, monitor the Gaussian movement of volume, and ride the rocket. Now, if your computer is smart enough to monitor ALL of these factors, get back to us. Best Regards Oddi
I agree, since the slope of a line is composed of two coordinate points eg, (x,y) & (x1,y1) and since indicators are plotted on xy coordinates, no computer will ever be able to compute the slope of an indicator. Even worse, if the slope of an indicator really had some information, the computer will not be able to quickly run an optimization over a range of slope values to observe the results. Its such a shame computers are so dumb and useless for backtesting, they could really accelerate the learning curve of beginner traders.
Scanning using Reuters historical data.Think I'd rather go with Reuters and pay a techie to help me with the software than 'share' my ideas with portfolio 123.
If computers ever became "intelligent" the markets would flatline, I believe, as computers would anticipate computers at an ever increasing speed until...... Best Regards Oddi
Oddi, We're on opposite ends of the trading spectrum. What you describe is way more discretionary than what I do. I'm not comfortable with acting on price, indicator and volume nuances in real time. First tried that when esignal was a baby and a few times since to "improve" entries and exits but can't do it without my emotions getting in the way. Backtesting, on the other hand, does pay off for me. Of course at first I spent years reading hundreds of TA books and looking at the same garbage everyone else does, but every now and then I'd discover something that really stood out, sometimes completely by accident. Now I'm at the point where I've integrated 8 software programs from 5 countries, some of which is proprietary. Not to mention that I've developed my own system of custom graphics for performance metrics so when you and I talk about backtesting, we may be thinking of two different things. I trade EOD only and my discretion is limited to research and premarket opening checks. But if I was doing discretionary trading, I'd at least want the wind at my back. By that I mean I'd want to trade patterns that test out, patterns that can make money traded on an EOD basis and would be forgiving of human error, but could also possibly be milked for more than EOD profits with discretionary expertise. "Rockets" don't make this grade (see my earlier posts for what I tested). Which is why I suggested looking at P123. Anyone who doesn't have the capability to historically backtest hundreds of fundamental criteria simply lacks an informed perspective on "rocket" EPS and RS rankings. Trader666
Trader666 Perhaps I was foggy in what the criterion for even being able to properly test a rocket. The computers that I have experience with cannot compute all the variables in a timely manner, perhaps your systems are more efficient. I used TS to backtest and design things. I suppose it boils down to which fighter pilot is better, one that relies on his instruments alone, or one that relies on his intruments and his instincts. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. In this system, volume is the wind at your back. You stay sidelined until this wind reaches a sufficient speed to propel your boat. It, IMHO, would be beneficial to you to learn to master your emotions. To do this you need to know where you are in the market at all times. If you are able to integrate ALL of the facets of SCT into a seamless continum, this will help you tremendously. If your systems are as effective as you say they are, I would suggest you shorten the wave cycle to intraday, so that you can make more money. EOD monitoring, while effective, is very crude. Now, if they are not, which is why you are asking us questions more than likely, read through the various threads. There are also camtasia videos available, and a comprehensive manual. I will be more than happy to assist you with whatever questions that you may have. Best Regards Oddi
You know, you're absolutely right, I've never quite thought of it that way before... it's the tools that are stupid, NOT the people who use them! Guess I've been on the B Team for way too long!:eek: