> There are loads and loads of market letter writters, signal, system > and indicator sellers out there all of whom have the same goal and it > isn't to educate the public.
How true!!! I would not mind paying for a product that works ... I am just not convinced that cycle analysis is worth much more that the standard indicators that are in the public domain. Stoch-RSI and T3 filter put on AB board by Dimitris Tsokakis are more advanced items freely available to us. I am not looking for another research project. The most useful thing I have found so far is to use 2 or maybe even 3 times frames - at least for day trading. Increases the effectiveness of any system significantly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: [amibroker] Re: FFT > No one publishes the workings of the "Holy Grail" for all to see for > a variety of reasons not the least of which is that it owouldn't take > long before it stopped working ... Beyond that it's not really for > sale in any form disclosed or otherwise either for the same > reasons ... > > If you had a system that made 100% CAR on less then 5% DD's what > would it be worth ? ... Billions ? Millions ? Certainly not > thousands ... Even if you only had $10k to start with in ten years > you'd have $10mm ... > > There are loads and loads of market letter writters, signal, system > and indicator sellers out there all of whom have the same goal and it > isn't to educate the public. > > Think about it ... > > --- In [email protected], "Ara Kaloustian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> interesting thought, but I don't think doing FFT on weeky data will > overcome the basic issues of FFT. >> >> Unfortunately, my experience with MESA (at least the version > provided in Ehlers books) has not been useful either. >> >> In particular, I dont get good separation of trend and cycle modes. > Seems cycle mode is valid after 2 complete "good looking" cycles are > gone by. This is of course not very useful as the cycles do not > continue forever. >> >> I beleive the propriatary version (which is different) is available > from Trade Station and eSignal for 30 day free evaluation. >> >> There is only scetchy info in his books about the proprietary > version. >> >> If anyone uses these platforms to trade with, you might try and see > if they are useful. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rakesh Sahgal >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:03 PM >> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: FFT >> >> >> Exactly. The usefulness of the information extracted is a > function of it's use-ability as an input for trading decisions. With > dominant cycle lengths changing every few bars how can we implement > trading positions based on this input? Anybody used this successfully > to call swing pivots and willing to share their technique? Just loud > thinking and maybe it is without a logical base - Is it possible to > extract the cycle length based on the DFT algorithm Tomasz posted on > a weekly timeframe and then apply it to the daily timeframe by > multiplying with 5(trading days in a week). Will that to some extent > take care of the concern about the constancy of cycle length? >> >> >> R >> >> >> On 3/28/07, wavemechanic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I think you suggest, neither is the Holy Grail. FFT can > certainly not compete in the resolution department with MESA without > invalidating the requirement of constancy of amplitude and phase > because of the need for large data lengths in order to achieve > resolution. So, using short data lengths MESA shoots for high > resolution of short-term cycles and knowingly accepts some > statistical penalty. Even so its still not Shangri La because short- > term cycles will most probably not be present over longer periods > that are of interest to traders/investors. Ehlers cleverly takes > care of this by dividing the world into trending and non-trending and > arguing that short-term cycles will be a major player in non-trending > markets but not in trending markets (very useful insight). He then > throws in the towel and emphasizes trading in trending markets (short- > term trading is too tough?). >> >> Bill >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To: <[email protected] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:42 PM >> Subject: [amibroker] Re: FFT >> >> >> > Not to get into semantics ... But yes and this is because one >> > usually uses MESA with shorter data samples where the shorter > term >> > cycles are not overwhelmed by the longer cycles which > typically have >> > larger amplitudes. While interesting for some things FFT's > don't >> > really have particularly good granularity as cycle length > approaches >> > half the size of the data being examined. MESA doesn't > suffer from >> > this. >> > >> > --- In [email protected] , "wavemechanic" <fimdot@> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, that's right - handle is the wrong word and should be > find, >> > reveal, uncover, etc. This ability is of particular interest > to >> > short-term traders. >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Fred" <ftonetti@> >> >> To: <[email protected] > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:04 PM >> >> Subject: [amibroker] Re: FFT >> >> >> >> >> >> > MESA doesn't really have the ability to handle shorter > cycles >> > per >> >> > se ... >> >> > >> >> > What it does have is the ability to pull cyclical > information >> > out of >> >> > shorter samples of data. >> >> > >> >> > --- In [email protected] , "wavemechanic" > <fimdot@> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> No, I'm not saying that MESA will give better results > than >> >> > a "better" FFT (is MESA a "better" FFT?). That judgment > cannot >> > be >> >> > made until you leave the hypothetical and have a "better" > FFT to >> >> > talk about. Until then statistics help identify valid > cycles >> > and >> >> > MESA offers some advantages, including noise filtering and >> > ability >> >> > to handle shorter cycles. Good luck in your search. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: Ton Sieverding >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:24 AM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So what you are saying is - 'Beyond that one can go to > MESA' - >> > >> >> > that even after I should have found whatever modified > version of >> >> > FFT, MESA will give me better results. In other words, why >> > playing >> >> > with FFT if MESA is the right way to go. Is that your > opinion or >> > am >> >> > I missing something ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Ton >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: wavemechanic >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:42 PM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The restrictions associated with FFT that Ehlers > mentions >> > can >> >> > be found in any textbook. As for better results with FFT, > the >> > next >> >> > step is to evaluate the cycles statistically (e.g., > Bartels, F- >> >> > ratio, chi-square, etc.). Beyond that one can go to MESA > and >> > such. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: Ton Sieverding >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:58 AM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Frankly for me these are John Ehlers typical > arguments to >> >> > use his MESA model in stead of FFT and has nothing to do > with a >> >> > discussion. The question for me still remains if there > really is >> > no >> >> > way to get better results with FFT than the ones we have > got ? >> > If >> >> > Fourier analysis is correct and it's possible to simulate >> > whatever >> >> > continues timeseries with a bunch of sinewaves and if MESA > can >> > give >> >> > me the correct harmonics, it should also be possible to > obtain >> > the >> >> > same results with a modified version of FFT. Question is > how ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Ton Sieverding. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: wavemechanic >> >> >> To: AmiBroker, User >> >> >> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:27 AM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is a discussion of FFT use and problems on > Ehlers >> >> > MESA website: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.mesasoftware.com/fftcomparison.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: Ara Kaloustian >> >> >> To: AB-Main >> >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 3:16 PM >> >> >> Subject: [amibroker] FFT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I was playing with AB's FFT code that TJ > provided... >> >> >> >> >> >> The cycles seem to shift relative to the data, > based >> > on >> >> > how many data points are analyzed. This is of course > expected. >> >> >> >> >> >> Question: >> >> >> >> >> >> Has anyone found a way to determine optimum > number of >> >> > data points to analyze, and then determine the relevance > of the >> >> > dominant cycle, or find any relevant cycles? >> >> >> >> >> >> Most of the time the dominant cycle seems to be > the >> >> > largest one available. >> >> >> >> >> >> Has anyone been able to use these cycles > succesfully? >> >> >> >> >> >> Ara >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > ------ >> > --- >> >> > --- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >> >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: > 268.18.17/732 - >> >> > Release Date: 3/24/2007 4:36 PM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > ------ >> > --- >> >> > ------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >> >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/733 - >> > Release >> >> > Date: 3/25/2007 11:07 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > ------ >> > --- >> >> > ----------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >> >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - > Release >> > Date: >> >> > 3/26/2007 2:31 PM >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Please note that this group is for discussion between > users only. >> >> > >> >> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail > directly to >> >> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com >> >> > >> >> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check > DEVLOG: >> >> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ >> >> > >> >> > For other support material please check also: >> >> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html >> >> > >> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release > Date: >> > 3/26/2007 2:31 PM >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Please note that this group is for discussion between users > only. >> > >> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly > to >> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com >> > >> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check > DEVLOG: >> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ >> > >> > For other support material please check also: >> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release > Date: 3/26/2007 2:31 PM >> > >> > >> > > > > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only. > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > For other support material please check also: > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
