You are correct, absolutely correct, in coding the SCT or PVT or SSR, plunking a Buy or Sell on the chart is the LEAST difficult part. Probably, most any programmer could tell you this. Form the way the OP typed up his initial comment it looked like he wasn't to range trade between R and S and vice versa. I suggested that he just use contrarian signals. For his preference the punking would eliminate all signals which were not contrarian. This plunking would simply use a coding contruct a long the lines of and AND circuit which anded all signals and the "contrarial positive signal". For simplicity in coding this signal can be generated in any one of several ways. Commonly, a coder would just go to another script or snippet and add the output of that snippet to the AND circuit who output could be forwarded to any trading platform to save a trader the effort of having to trade manually. the output would also be sent to panes such as Price, Volume, OTR, DOM and other leading indicators of price (slow and fast stochastics Coding paradigms and then applying the paradigm to various markets is very common. A core set of coded logic can then be used to handle information from the markets. I use six levels going out from the core. Each shell adds several degrees of information all of which is commenserate. Commenserate means super clean and free of anomallies. This is not possible with inductively designed logic to achieve this and thsi is well known. Most people are unable to even determine what it means to go from the least degrees of freedom to the "sufficient" degrees of freedom for a given shell moving outward from a core. When a person has gone out 5 more shells form the core, he can fully satisfy any granularity of the design of the given market. Noise is not a factor in this kind of design. If you look at most information flow sourses and their tooling, you will find, that based on the present trend of refinement that it takes over 3 months and about 6 months for the provider to get the message and correct the ailment that they are un aware of. To encode a core and several shells means that the interface with the information provider must be kept at a minumum. This could be self evident. The reason is that occasionally coders fuck up what they are trying to do by using provider degrees of freedom which have no refined aspect of being commenserate on given shell levels. The key considerations in the application of ATS's to markets is timing. From what you say in this thread, there is absolutely no chance you could program signals that could be used for successful trading. It is just like a case where BWolinsky could not make use of the Cash Cow. Any programmer on ET can easily point out his simplistic fuck ups. It is easy to notice that his cash cow does not trade. It is easy to see his cash cow is not in the market all of the time. It is easy to see his cash cow cannot determine the right side of the market. All he did was steal the name and use my name to promote his vender operation. So it if is so simple toi add signals why wasn't it done? The reason is that we contend that building the mind is how to become rich. We present responsews that help people build their minds. I am very familiar with Woodie and his platform sponsor and the mental orientation of the corporation staff that provides that platform. as you may know they have a concept called the "wish list". Building a bridge to the platform via "wishing" for platform accutriments for timing trading is not a possibility. What this means is that a person cannot use their platform to build a library for putting signals on a pane of the platform display. I suggested the you are absolutley correct that plunking buys and plunking sell is the simplest thing. It is not complex but there is NO MEANS. Traders need to be able to have tools to be able to make money. In the contemporary setting, the interface with infomation providers is such that almost no capability is available to traders from providers. you are not aware of that because of how you operate and understand the market place for trader tools or tooling. As an amateur I have no restrictions on being able to to anything I want any way I want. Use use several platforms form several providers and I gleen the combination I need on all of the shells I spoke of. My mind runs on the 100 to 10 milliseconds level and it is fully built (differentiated). The OP in this thread is operating "blind". If he were a pilot, airborne and in the fog, he would not have any ooperating instrument pannel to refer to. It is easy to fly by the seat of your pants to connect to the ship's controls but you still have the problem of where are you when fog bound. For trading, I have not been fog bound since 1957. There is NO chance that what I am oriented to is of any interest to the publications of the financial industry. It has little or no interest for the providers of support tooling, electronics, or documentation in any way to the financial industry. In another thread on trends and how the market has changed over the years, a contributor has pointed out how most people spend time developing closed minds. developing a closed mind is an interesting and significant process. there in that thread you see two closed minds arguing about many things they will never really see or understand. I slipped in once in a while to measure the group's status and promise. It was zeroed out long before the thread started and they commend themsleves on their interaction.
The title of the thread is a timing question that has an obvious answer. Many have given their views. If it were asked from a coding or programming viewpoint, then the logic diagrams, etc, would have been posted for any of the various approaches that do S and R Breakout trading. The answers so far have explained that trying to trade a breakout manually, for most people is a crap shoot. The thread will probably continue along this line. Another subject that is important is when do trends BreakOut through the R and S levels. A further subject is when during the market's testing of R or S does the testing end in a BreakOut. Because of the forum this thread is in, there is a given level of moderation that precludes getting down to business to answer all the questions surrounding S and R and how to trade the conditions, circumstances and situations.
Support is broken when a swing low is made below it Ressistance is broken when a swing high is made above it
I've done frequently with ES in my sim account with mixed results. The strongest follow-through seems to occur on a breakout of the high or low of the opening bar in your time frame (I trade 5-min intraday), but once a more distant S/R zone is tested, there are frequent false breakouts, and deep reversals. I've used this method of entering a trade with stocks in my live account, in the direction of a trend. For example, if price is showing weakness beneath a falling moving average, pulled back to the MA after a single leg down and is returning to test the low of the day so far, I've used a sell stop to catch the momentum follow-through IF this support level is broken. If 2 legs of the trend have already occurred, the follow through is generally shallower, and I wouldn't use this strategy 3 legs into a trend UNLESS there is news driving extreme strength or weakness; in that case there could be strong capitulation move to exhaust the trend. We're testing breaks out of a consolidation range with our ATS with very mixed results. A good break is fantastic, but too many false breaks can chop you to death.
The part of your ATS that is plunking BUY and SELL needs improvement. Indeed! as has been judged. You are getting fairly close as one of your paragraphs that describes an FTT indicates. Trending trumps the R or S values. So far you do not deal with the nesting of fractals. At the stage of dealing with nesting of fractals gets on the table and handled, then consolidation goes away. You then see there is no consoludation in markets. Convention names it and defines it BUT it is not there in the sense of extracting money from the markets using an ATS. Trading is a timing game and the timing is certain. Price is not where timing comes from, however. I'm glad to see you have come up with a description of the pattrn that the market makes over and over. However, your description does leave out one variable. What if the third movement of price was "not" weak (shallow is your specific term) as you think it is. Suppose it is stong (and you prove it to yourself one way or another so you believe it) AND suppose it fails a test that is measurable. The test failure combined with the strong effort is what BEGINS the next trend. If you used this BEGINNING point and found out that the BO of the RTL comes next on the new trend (the trend overlap ends), what would your P&L become with all that added profit. You get to add the two legs of profit right now and you have those signals already plunked in. Plunk in the end of the third leg signal and unplunk the BO of the RTL since you are already on the right side. This keeps you in the market all three legs and you already know that is when the three legs repeat with the opposite sentiment. Indeed! Plunk it up to full force.
Hershey, the master of zero credibility suggesting to the one person in ET with the only journal with credibility. Simply amazing.
I see this again and again, I recognize it via the bigger picture and the price action and some kind of instinct that talks to me, which I then PROCEED TO QUESTION, causing me to hesitate. Yes, I need 3 cars minimum to take care of letting my profits run. Still pissing with 1 most of the time, no real risk, but no real flexibility either
I see what you are driving at. Yes - the looking-glass can be deep, but picture is always out of focus before a lens is applied. I'm sure you know there are ways around application shortcomings - file or memory write/reads and the like. While I agree with the general premise that prodding the thought process is good, "proof of life" is not the secret to life, and so does not impede the philosophical process.