TA - Objective or Psychological Skill?

Discussion in 'Technical Analysis' started by cornix, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. dom993

    dom993

    CL always-in, 1 contract per entry-signal, no cap on total number of contracts traded.

    Objective TA, in-sample backtesting.
     
    #111     Jun 12, 2013


  2. Same goes for price drivers. ET is the only place I've ever heard of them :p
     
    #112     Jun 12, 2013
  3. #113     Jun 12, 2013
  4. #114     Jun 12, 2013
  5. Lots of big egos in the city of dreams..... enjoy 11madison!

    surf
     
    #115     Jun 12, 2013
  6. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    You gonna let that stop you. The idea is to make more than you lose, not be right all the time.

    [​IMG]
     
    #116     Jun 12, 2013
  7. cornix

    cornix

    As RR already asked: what exactly breakouts did you test? On what time-frames, breakouts of what exact kinds of levels, what parameters of risk management et cetera?

    It all makes a lot of sense, trading is a game of tiny edges, so there are no "minor" nuances.

    P. S. My sample size is 1000's of trades, I think it's enough overall.
     
    #117     Jun 12, 2013
  8. cornix

    cornix

    Probably those people already exist, they are just not interested in making their performance public and I fully understand them. If I traded illiquid market like CL, why would I want to share my edge with people who tomorrow will compete with me?
     
    #118     Jun 12, 2013
  9. cornix

    cornix

    Exactly. You need friends to drive the price. Market is overall fractal, but not every fractal offers a move of a range which justifies paying commission etc.

    So generally we want to time those points on small TFs, which trigger longer-term plays.
     
    #119     Jun 12, 2013
  10. An above average discussion is ensuing. thanks for starting the thread and, further, explaining your viewpoint and perspective.

    I wish those who generalize would cite the back up references.

    For me Aronson used the simplistic rsulte of Masters. Later he qualified it as referenced here. But he was still striving to predict.

    As RR points out and others ask, the basis of MS's BO analysis is on the same level as Aronson's simplisitc setting and generalization. Lucrum's 2B suggestion to remedy Aronson's and MS's is great and is further backed up by the multi TF advantage for deeper observations.

    Today began with what turns out to be a long term play (many 5 min bars in a Set D drifting trend) that was triggered by a small TF event. I went short on the open as carry over dictaed But I had to reverse on the close of bar 1. I am still long at this point, having gone through 10 small TF events that "kept me in continue". A persistent lateral now obbliges me to go sub frctal to loook for sub events.

    as most people have suggested, market theory moves forward. It seems to me that processing vaste amounts of data in simplisitc ways is lik the expressions of how apples perform in barrels. Barrels do not house apples any more.

    Computing powere brings more and more sensitivity to the consideration of significant things. I believe, more and more, the appropriate math will be used to deal with opportunities. Lucrum's @b is a fine example of the Set A and Set B types of incomplete trends. this am is another example of the Set D type of drift trend. All three types are deviations form the "normal" Set C type trend.

    Back to annotating and logging.

    you comment above, I find to be quite exacting and to cause and effect.
     
    #120     Jun 13, 2013