>Of course, no >system/methodology/philosophy is the "word" and we all take what is >useful and leave the rest alone.
I don't mind being challenged - as long as it doesn't become personal - anyone who takes a public position should be prepared to engage in robust discussion and sometimes be corrected. I didn't take any offence at what you said - rather I wanted to highlight some of the trading points that are implicit in Gerards approach (it makes a change from code talk). I have only been trading 4-5 years and I am (privately) quite a biased trader already, but I seldom make emphatic public statements as I believe I would be doing others a dis-service to bias them towards my style (I firmly believe people have to develop their own style which is where they will trade the best). I look forward to your future comments as I like to hear the opinions of others on trading - it helps keep me honest. I haven't backtested Gerards code, but I have tested similar and I didn't get excellent results - that's why I opened the door for others to comment on their experiences with it - did I miss something?. I find it a very interesting trade - for my money it has all the key ingredients of TA in it. What I am saying is that if you see that trade as a CCI trade then that is a convoluted definition of it and when 'optimimizing' it as a CCI trade one would tend to go off and test a range of CCI parameters (for the short and medium term CCI's etc). If it is seen as an RTM trade (which is simpler i.e. the code is shorter and, more importantly, the concepts underpinning the trade are simple and universal) then the possible ways of optimizing that trade increase. I have a 'theory' that there are a very limited number of trades, possibly only one, that has many variations and hundreds of ways of modelling it (that excludes things like arbitridge trading etc). Gerards 'system' is a classic example of a less efficient way of modelling one of the major trades. Anyone who analyzes that trade and reduces it to its most efficient form will learn a heck of a lot about trading (if they don't know it already). brian_z --- In [email protected], "fimdot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian: > > (Still have to send this from the website - what a pain) > > I have no problem with advising people to look before they leap so I > misinterpreted your comments as pontification based on > assumption/opinion. > > As for your last comments about Gerard's code I wonder why you say > that it is not a system. I have not played with it but see in the > code up and down arrows. Sounds like a system to me although it > might not be up to your standards. > > Your comments about not being efficient (whatever that is) or simple > (whatever that is) or not being optimized (Gerard does note use of > manual optimization and the need to adjust parameters for different > markets) are irrelevant, imo. In my world, what counts is bottom > line results which I gather have not been evaluated on a relative or > absolute basis. > > There are by some counts seven categories of indicators, including > momentum. Within each category there is much similarity in results > and interpretation. I have not seen any objective basis for throwing > out CCI, for example, in favor of price action. As I have mentioned > on several occasions, imo, the way to go is to combine charts > (patterns, trendlines, S&R, cycles, etc.) with a variety of > indicators, requiring convergence - but then I'm a discretionary > trader so this would not work for all. Of course, no > system/methodology/philosophy is the "word" and we all take what is > useful and leave the rest alone. From what I have seen most > systems/methodologies when properly executed produce satisfactory > results and that's all that counts in my book. > > Good trading. > > Bill > > > > --- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <brian_z111@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Anyone using the signal, or thinking of using it might benefit from > > looking a bit further (that is all I am saying). > > > > BTW it is not a system as it doesn't have exits etc. > > > > What I am pointing out is: > > > > 1) The 'trade', as coded by Gerard, is a close cousin of the > > InverseRTM so additional commentary can be found under that heading. > > > > 2) The exact signals, as produced by Gerards code, can be obtained > by > > other simpler means. > > > > 3) Alternative ways of getting that signal are more efficient. > > > > IMO it is not optimized as written at present. > > > > Simplifying the code and cutting it lose from the CCI positions it > > correctly within the framework of its trading philosophy and that > > then leads to ideas that help towards optimizing the trade. > > Getting rid of the CCI also fits nicely with my views that price > > action is a superior 'indicator' to many of the price derived > > indicators (CCI is highly over-rated by some?). > > > > Since my friend Bob is counting my 'kernels of wheat' I made sure I > > put one in there for him (I dehusked if first though). > > > > brian_z > > > > P.S > > > > Since it is philosphy that distinguishes Mankind from the animals: > > > > "One mans chaff is another mans mattress". > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "fimdot" <fimdot@> wrote: > > > > > > Assumptions and academic exercises aside, all that matters is > > whether > > > the system/methodology produces satisfactory results for the > user. > > > That's the bottom line and the rest takes second place. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "brian_z111" <brian_z111@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Look in Files Section - Listing Dow Waves by Gerard Carey > > > excellent. > > > > > > > > No disrespect to Gerard Carey but I don't rate this as an > > excellent > > > > TA study. It is the start of an interesting discussion and I do > > > thank > > > > Gerard for sharing it. > > > > > > > > As I pointed out to Gerard at the time, the Dow Indicator > entry > > > > signals are very similar to an Inverse Reversion To Mean > System, > > > > which is bread and butter in the industry. > > > > They always look great on a chart with a longer than average > > trend > > > in > > > > place (which obviously occurs less than 50% of the time). > > > > > > > > From memory, if you look at Gerard's example chart of the Dow > > > > Indicator plotted on the ^DJI it makes 12 - 13 successive > touches > > > of > > > > a bullish MA. > > > > > > > > My propostion regarding waves, or cycles, is that if you > measure > > > > their frequency, and magnitude, you can expect to get a lot of > > > > variance and something approaching a bell curve if they are > > > > distributed (either frequency or magnitude). > > > > > > > > So 12 - 13 successive touches of a bullish MA that continue on > to > > a > > > > higher high is not something that happens all that frequently. > > > > To provide some balance look at the same indicator on some > other > > > > charts, or better still backtest it to obtain a larger dataset. > > > > > > > > If we could predict when a stock, or any other instrument, is > > going > > > > into a long term trend (cf a short term trend) we wouldn't need > > any > > > > other indicators at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > brian_z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "areehoi" <areehoi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look in Files Section - Listing Dow Waves by Gerard Carey > > > > excellent. > > > > > > > > > > Dick H. > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "greenhorn1983" > > <greenhorn1983@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "MarkK" <MailYahoo@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was curious if anyone had written an ALF for Dow theory > > > trades > > > > as of > > > > > > yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MarkK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i've also been thinking about it lately :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
