> You can only claim a peak > when you look several bars AFTER the peak > - that is looking into the future in purest form.
No, it is not. You keep focusing your eyes on the peak, so the time period after the peak appears as future to you. But the script has one variable called "bar", which points to the "now" moment. So, the future is not after the peak, as you incorrectly assume, but after the "bar" variable. > You can call it "expected lag" and I am calling it "looking into the > future", both having same net effect > - the result is useless for profitable trading, > For me this ends this purely academic discussion. I agree that the discussion shifted to a word game. It does not matter how do you call things. What does matter is how functions work. Every trader must know exactly whether TroughBars[bar] does look into the future after bar or not. In WL it does not. Therefore, I can use TroughBars[bar] in WL for backtesting. But in AB (I was told) TroughBars[bar] does look after bar and, therefore, I cannot use TroughBars[bar] for backtesting.' This is the difference. > the result is useless for profitable trading, as useless as knowing > what kind of market cycle we had one year ago. This is simply not true. Trendlines, for examples, are often drawn using several historical peaks or troughts, sometimes many months back. John
