With respect, the pure PV system without any indicators, relying only on crayola-ing, was IMO never sufficiently well defined to code and test it. Had it been, I would have done it. The real issue is not "does it work?" but "what the hell are the hard unambuggerous rules for it?"
The PVT was part of the Hershey Equities method that was coded for trading, and wasn't profitable, so crayola-ing can be done automatically with it but it does not have any ascending equity curves.
We seem to have a parallel exchange of opinions. Coding a set of rules is a craft. It doesn't require much intelligence. Running a code over sets of data without knowing how to interpret it is useless, and it is hazardous to your bank account. Check what the hell happened!?!? Discovering the laws of the market requires a genius. Understanding those laws, and having the ability to devise a way to extract money from the market requires an intelligence above average, and a lot of work to get into the appropriate mindset. This is what can be reproached to Hershey: he misled people into believing that anybody can do it. In his defence, probably he really believes it. You have to fully internalize the price / volume relationship, and apply it consistently. You can use various filters / crutches to help you in this process, but you have to understand both their functions and limitations, and not to blindly rely on them. Automating this method may be compared to using automatic language translators. It's not enough to know the words, the grammar, even the style, you need the feeling of the language that even most human translators don't have. I'm almost sure that I can't convince you.
No, you can't, because Jack's method is a joke. Price Physics is a much better theory of market price, movement, and fluidity. <b>There is zero comparison here, since Jack's a nutcase, he hasn't articulated in formal compilations any of his theories instead choosing to obfuscate 3-4 different sets of ideas that have no backtests.</b> Since there are no backtests, and no one's put on a forward test, it's not that there has to be a forward test but that there's no evidence that Jack's method wrt PVT, SCT, which are essentially the same thing, and Cash Cow or Rockets which have very limited resources amassed in piles of drivel throughout ET <i><b>could ever be profitable.</i></b> There is no evidence that PVT or SCT is profitable. No backtests means there's no theory he has that works other than the one I adapted in Wealth Lab for Cash Cow trading. If it startles you to realize you've been mislead, it happens to noobs quite often. They hear and see thousands of threads on the guy and there is no proof from Jack, and only incenses me to tell you that anybody thinking Jack has foolproof methods or ones that pay off national debts is ludicrous. No, price physics and pairs trading arbitrage will always work, but Jack's methods will not, and have been shown to be unprofitable no matter which variant you'd like to discuss, but, for me, his only real method that has been brought to light since 2008 was Scottd's EasyLanguage Cash Cow code, and I don't know where he got it, but that is the finality on the extent to which Jack's method works. If you'd like to exhibit some intelligence in our discussion rather than attacking the messenger you may insert whatever random logic you think fits PVT/SCT methods because they have already been tested and found unprofitable. His rockets has never been coded, but I'm unsure if it isn't Cash Cow rather than a 4th method that that refers to. Backtesting is as good to me as proof; since there isn't any, there is no proof. Again, you may respond by attacking a highly knowledgeable RIA Rep and CTA, or you can insert your backtests, with tradeslists and that will be enough for me to say one way or the other. BTW, Baro-San, I am a savant, so don't tell me that I need to learn anything other than how to scientifically test his methods, because there's nothing formulaic but algorithms if there is by definition, a mechanical method of trading, that's somehow profitable. In many different topics around here the lack of backtesting means it's fraudulent, and if you don't understand that we can argue till I'm blue in the face, but not before I glow blue for you and tell you how finding out these answers for yourself is as much a journey to discover what's good for the soul as it is a way to prove genius one way or the other.
You are correct, Mr. Nestle. Have you thought about starting a new cult trading method? Like Jack Nestle's Wonderful Chocolate Crunch method? Or how about Jack Nestle's Price Volume Obfuscation method? No? Call it something better, like Jack Nestle's NASCAR Racing Method? Jack Nestle's call for calls method? Yeah, that's better.