The Phallusy of the Hershey PV Relation

Discussion in 'Strategy Development' started by Joe Doaks, Jan 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I have often been asked why I flagellate myself systematically demolishing SCT, when almost everybody else here believes that SCT is utter foolishness and need no convincing. I keep at it because I invariably discover interesting market phenomena in the process of proving Jack wrong. Of course I never share those.

    I have contended for years that SCT adherents are undisturbed by finding that this or that little facet of SCT is flawed. They magically believe that in the ensemble it works even if one part of it is patent nonsense.

    Consider the PV relation. When Jack first posted it here years ago I thought hard about it and concluded that it was a purely theoretical construct not supported by observation. The fact that they Crayola to "prove" it should have prompted me to debunk it in code at that time, but I let it pass, having better things to do.

    Now I find myself in the happy situation that my decidedly non-SCT system of trading a collection of edgelets is relatively stable. All I have to do is trade it. So I have a little time on my hands that previously went to system detection and development.

    So I coded the PV relation in a five minute chart on a bar-to-bar basis. No Crayolaing. A strict, literal interpretation. It is net negative for as far back as I had the interest to test it.

    In the attachment for today's NQ so far, the bottom pane is the PV Relation. Results are even worse on a narrow range day. It doesn't work in one-minute or ten-minute, either. I'll post other examples from time to time in support. I conclude that if a literal interpretation doesn't work, Crayolaing is an exercise in imagining what ain't there.
    • jd.jpg
      File size:
      19.4 KB
  2. Joe can you code this please

    <img src=>
  3. Thanks. Don't recall seeing it before. What do you call it?
  4. Market conversation between Past(signal) and Now(signal):)
  5. Now I understand, Mr_Black. But I can't code that because I'd have to get the past correct first, which is what I think I disproved. No disrespect to you, BTW, I like to read your posts in IR.
  6. The attachment reiterates how bogus the alleged PV Relation (bottom study) is on a day when it should have worked well. Contrast that with the modest but not at all shabby performance of the two SCT-inspired systems above it. So can I pretty-PLEASE join the A-Team now? Or maybe create an A- team for me?
    • jd.jpg
      File size:
      32.1 KB
  7. :D
  8. nkhoi

    nkhoi Moderator

  9. I always thought or used to think that SCT was about being in the market, always, at some size (which i agree with). Then the SCT clowns like neoxx and the like spoiled it all with thier absolute shit display of technique and crazy fucking charting.


    Go ahead with your own ideas, just don't let bone heads advertise you and your will not work.


  10. You couldn't prove anything right or wrong. You are Hypostomus masquerading as Joe Doakes and various other aliases you keep in play at ET. Get medical help for your condition.

    And now Grob has gone you puff yourself up.

    Yet over years you have written friendly as well as derogatory posts about the so called SCT method. You are nothing but weak, vacillating and a poser who is always going nowhere.
    #10     Jan 30, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.