Jack, I can't resist: -Proflogic's support and resistance points are defined by oscillations, Minor or Prime... so basically, (invisible) horizontal lines on the chart... Failure and therefore trading direction is defined by how price reacts at these horizontal levels, verified by an indicator. -In your method, failure (the FTT), as I (incompletely) understand it, is defined by the reaction of price relative to a slanted line (or a pair of slanted lines, a channel), basically a decision making boundary. You see price moving in channels, and trade the failure to Traverse such a channel (the FTT). Do you think that PL's charts shown would benefit from overlaying channels unto them? Meaning, in your opinion, would a reversal (defined as "Physical price failure" by Proflogic) gain in strength if it also failed in regards to what you call the "Right line"? This is not an attempt to dilute either method by making it more complex, just a thought that occurred to me... Thanks.
The ergodic indicator PL uses takes into account the limiting (extent of travel) aspects of channels. PL chooses a trading frequency from this that harvests profits form price change at the limits of price change. This is a clean, unvarnished, type of high performance trading. I would not think of his limits as being horizontal or tipped exclusively. They are synchronized to the climate of the market and designed to be "universal". Both methods are not tied to the "trendline" or the DOW trend, historically speaking. The type of trading characterized as trading TL BO's performs at a very much lower level of the potential of the markets. And often "protection", as used by this sort of trader, uses stops that are below the TL. I use stops for position trading for mentoring beginners. See category 8 and 9 of the document that reviews 12 methods three ways. All MA strategies are less effective as well. They do not even catch BO's of TL's. Here in both methods the major aspect that is there that improves performance is the fact that well before the TL would be reached, a definitive signal has been given. We both name it by our vocabularies since it is not common in conventional parlance. This is an aspect of front running that you see here. It also affords the trader the opportunity to trade from a neutral bias which is important for harvesting profits. Over the next while in trading, we all will be seeing some methods come to a close. Some of these methods being retired (See, especially Don Bright's post on how he keep his professionals hard at work getting the job done by making iterative refinements) do have potential "Phoenix" characteristics meaing they are capable of being adjusted to begin to perform once more. To cite just one key type of adjustment, MACD as designed (12, 26, 9), bridges and "soaks" in contemporary trading cycles. Here the defaults have to be "tuned" to the PC era. PL has made his indicator "universal and so internally it adjusts for "PC" type inovations in market operations. Bridging means it floats on rows of price waves instead of riding up and down sucessive waves. Soaking means that it doesnot recognize the effects of signal to noice ratios. See the SPM thread for to concrete examples of these two failures. The performance is low as a consequence. A repair is made to the operation by adding another subsystem to help. Unfortunately, the strategy deployed also misses four key flags. Going from 1/8th's to pennies was another financial market inovation that affected trading. The advent of emini's is another. EFT's affect the markets as well. Liquity as shown by market growth also affects trading. I feel that PL has a way of taking these things into account. To refine for four years in the way he did, is a statement in itself. SCT devolves into a KISS operation ulimately. The difficulty most people encounter with SCT is taking shortcuts of their invention. It is hard to explain, simply, but people do have an incredible capability as a consequence of their phsyiological and psychological equipment. they trck thmselves often into thinking that skipping steps in development stilll allows them to get to where they think they are going. Growth and personal building of knowledge, skills and experience is not something to shortcut or invent around. The human system is quite capable of trading with expertise if given half a chance. A path that has survived for 3,000 years exhibits a trait that is applicable here. A student will arrive at questions; the questions are always in the same order. For traders at inquery, this is true as well. The first fork in the path is to the and of shortcuts. The second fork is to th land of invention. Those two avoided, a persn uses reason to perfect trading and acheive extracting the potential of the markets. These things are all choices made personally. Continuation of trends and endings of trends is where the rubber meets the road. Pring in a Q and A could not visualize trends overlapping. That is what these pages are about. Read the Seykota quotes and fill in the remaining commentary to make it coplete. Omissions count. If he doesn't or you don't you come to the wrong conclusions for making money.
Jack . . . yes thank you very much for the post. I've never heard my work described that way. Vienna, to add to your earlier question. I think exploring price movement is never a bad thing. If you are familiar with Jack's techniques, please try a hybrid of the two and let us know your results.
Absolutely! Anything that improves "readability" is a good thing. Will let you know if I turn up anything useful. Am in no way an expert on Jack's method by the way, just stumbled upon his work during the holidays and found it very interesting.
I always begin defining Trend at the larger bar volume level since Prime trend is the strongest energy applied to any particular chart increment. The notation of "Aggressive Reverses" is taken from the chart creating a minor trading oscillation that was the confirming oscillation of a Prime Trend Top (Resistance) or Prime Trend Bottom (Support). Prime trading oscillations that confirm Prime Trending Support or Resistance levels are what I call Conservative or Ultra-Conservative oscillation trade set-ups because it pinpoints where price gave up as it was creating Prime Oscillation Resistance or Support levels. The only two outcomes at these points are either consolidation or short term price reversal but both are immediately recognized.
Thank you. And what were the steps you went through to reach the conclusion that the first "aggressive entry" was a confirming oscillation of a Prime Trend Top? (I know it seems as though you've gone through all of this many times before, but this is a particularly good example, and it can illustrate at least some of the basics of your approach very nicely.) LC
I was the first Minor Trading Oscillation that was a LH after the Trending Chart entered into Prime. A Conservative entry would have been the first Prime Trading Oscillation that was a LH after the Trending Chart entered into Prime. An Ultra conservative entry would have been if price had created a Prime Trading Breach of Support prior to it creating a Prime Trading oscillation that was a LH after the Trending Chart entered into Prime.
Sorry, but I missed your reply when it was made. Again, a "prime oscillation" is being defined as one which accompanies an ergodic which is > or < than 10? If so, your "aggressive" entry would have been "conservative" if the ergodic had moved above 10 at the same time? As for the "ultra conservative entry", where are you locating support on the ES chart? Are you using 1430.50 as intraday support, particularly since it was tested later at 1431? And thanks again. LC