zdo

see post below... site came up with 'error on page' when I posted first time so I thought it didn't take and posted basically the same thing again.

“façade exhausted bulls and broke, beat up bears” was a comment from my blog. But something else is going on - narrowed ‘volatility’ coupled with very atypical slope (ie HUGE movement in short time period and virtually nonexistent scotoperiods). Hm ??

OK - What is a 'goat'?

Your choice...depends on your needs. I doubt if ATR application originators (LeBeau, etc) have made one way 'official' Average will give you the central tendency for all the ranges in the sample (length) xAverage will give more weight to more recent ranges in the sample (length) An exceptionally large recent range will push ATR number higher with xAvg than with Avg... A sample with an exceptionally large range in it will stay up longer with Avg than with xAvg as the large range fades to the bottom of the sample (length) Long length with Avg works pretty well if you're doing any std dev work Shorter length with xAvg works pretty well if you need higher sensitivity to recent activity...etc Which one suits your needs better?

bf, fwiw, I'm 'bloggin' - not specifically about "Measuring Strength of a Move Once in a Trade" but about whether and how to 'stay' or 'no stay' once in a trade... It doesn't use volume but unfortunately it does have lines - but only one active line at any given time.

Bohr makes a pretty case for indicators

Tams, sim piloting is probably the best and most used analogy in the ‘industry’ and your take on it is more grounded and balanced than most. … I will sidestep how loss of money is best not associated with loss of life, or how the consequences of mistakes in flying are distributed SO differently from the consequences of mistakes in trading, etc… I am not against sim either. A below average pilot (or trading) “trainee” would indeed be advised to spend a greater proportion of time on the sim than the real and be subject to a more structured progression. However, when I think about it, I come to the same conclusion as I have about sim trading - The average to excellent pilot (and trader) reaches the limits of benefits from sim very quickly and needs to get up on a real stick! .. and would in the end be a lot better pilot if the time on sim was miniscule compared to the time in real flight practicing responses to real circumstances – even if the ‘real’ is only in a piper cub / tiny FX acct. If you think about it from the pilot’s perspective, most sim in flying has purposes not truly aligned with creating the very best in a pilot. 'Corporate' reasons drive the emphasis on sim in flight… I suspect they drive the emphasis on sim in trading too – to the detriment of individual traders who are attempting to develop. Why don’t we see more ‘first kiss’ analogies instead of sim piloting analogies?

Precisely! “When you practice something ‘wrong’ you get really really good at the ‘wrong’ thing. The longer you practice failure, the harder it becomes to recognize success. Be careful what you practice, you may get really good at the wrong thing!” –Tony Blauer Imo - sim trading, papertrading, even certain modes of 'backtesting' / studying 'old' charts all raise the risk of quite unconsciously and unintentionally getting good at the 'wrong' things... yet another reason to forward test 'ideas', etc. with real money at each step of one's journey...

You guys’ responses were as if I was saying something was wrong with sim. Check the post. It says “Going sim is not bad advice. But there are just better alternatives to sim training these days…” Maybe I should have prefaced my remarks with “If your drive is to be in the pareto of the pareto, then skip sim…”. If your drive is just to get into the game - sim away. Cruiser is right, no analogies are necessary. I am actually saying learning how to lose real money should take precedence to learning how to win sim money. Take a survey, most everyone else disagrees. There is the crowd consensus and there are the outliers in every game. The crowd forms the great middling. The outliers form the elite. The elite are definitely ‘talented’ – but for them, the talent is way overrated by the crowd. And btw, padded BMX is not sim. It is BMX with ‘stops’ in place… you can still snap your freakin spinal cord. That’s real - not sim. More noobies than should will sim with the crowd and more noobies than should will be net ‘loosers’. I'm really only talking to the few who will push through and chew real. So, prefaced properly with --- if you’re really serious about mastering this game --- then these days, a very small real FX account is a better alternative for all the beginner work and play that needs to unfold for each individual than an unrealistically funded (for most beginners) sim account … hth one or two noobs

re: Sim screens ultimately do not decrease the pool of ‘loosers’. But forget statistics! If indeed you are a winner then get freakin busy trading and don’t waste a minute or an opportunity on a sim screen. ‘All’ the brokers (of course), ‘all’ the coaches, ‘all’ the helpful online posters, ‘all’ the magazine articles and advertisements, even ‘all’ the poker ‘pros’, advise noobies to sim trade… heck, it’s a blooming paradigm. The premise behind that advice – practice practice practice – is very sound! However, I advise noobies to go real from the beginning with a small account and with real do that core learning activity – practice practice practice. You will learn far more about yourself going real from the beginning. You will prepare yourself to deal far more realistically and effectively with suddenly changing conditions going real from the beginning. You will find out much more accurately and quickly whether or not and to what extent the trading game is for you going real from the beginning. Going sim is not bad advice. But there are just better alternatives to sim training these days (unless you just want to stroke yourself) . As a beginner, you will still have to do the same explorations in styles, edges, money management, etc ... just make it real. Real is harder and more direct – but it is real. "Train like you fight. Fight like you train" Which comes closer? Sim or real?

chris, have you searched or asked on the TS forums? I blve I have a seen a solution for this up there. Have you tried using the round function instead of assigning to decimal var? Will look at it later if I have time.

cherkezov, I suggest you open a tiny fx account and just start trading it. At first just use the individual results to tell what you need to learn, then as you build some net results use those to identify what you need to work on for the bigger picture. You must ultimately fit your style to yourself – so why waste years fitting yourself to the styles of others. Just about any old 'top ten rules' of trading you can find anywhere on the internet is all the reading you really need to do… the education is finding how, what, where, when they mean to you and how you can make you own living rules that are not conflictual to live by. brownsfan you know you don’t have to be so shy and unassertive … you can just come out and say what you mean

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to do / what the array holds. And have you asked on TS or MC forums?

Drop this into a new indicator and hit F3 Requires 2 data streams If needed you can hide both Data streams Note the formatting comments in code. hth // indicator iSprdDiff_OHLC var: oDiff(0), hDiff(0), lDiff(0), cDiff(0) ; oDiff = (o of data1) - (o of data2); hDiff = (h of data1) - (h of data2); lDiff = (l of data1) - (l of data2); cDiff = (c of data1) - (c of data2); Plot1(oDiff, "oDiff" ); // Set style to left tic Plot2(hDiff, "hDiff" ); // Set style to bar high Plot3(lDiff, "lDiff" ); // Set style to bar low Plot4(cDiff, "cDiff" ); // Set style to right tic

bf, sounds like you may be done with this thread but I’ll make a few more comments about the ‘stay - no stay’ decisions that traders must make all the time. Most systems should not have any ‘stay’ type exits, and per system, exits should be target (fixed or % of margin or… etc.), PA, trailing (via 'trend'lines see below or other trailing stop methods) or some combo. The dissonance from missing the occasional great move is part of it – hence your “be happy”. Also, some systems should have a mix of ‘stay’ and ‘no stay’ exits. The main point of all my posts in this thread is that the exit methodology must be matched as precisely as possible with the system itself. Most systems are designed to play for points and that is what they should do via ‘no stay’ exits and they are as you say “not half bad””. Joe Montana had no long ball and he played for points, but he turned sub 30 yard throws into super, etc. A very few systems are ‘stay’ unconditionally period and the number of traders who are sufficiently ‘comfortable’ with systems that reward ‘stay’ unconditionally (with the ‘trend’ btw) is also small. These systems play for position, not points. With full ‘stay’ systems “ … the most important aspect of any trading decision is never the condition of the market, but rather that of your own position. The trick is to be constantly moving toward a position of strength, both within an individual trade and within the marketplace at large. Just like basketball, chess, or any other activity that requires focus, you know you’re in the ‘zone’ of trading when you start playing for position, not for points.” Jonathan Hoenig, CapitalistPig Personally, I can make very good money 'scalping', a little bit of money swinging, sporadically good money breakout trading - but my really homerun years were when I had (just barely) enough stones to ‘stay’ and the seasonal / trend went parabolic. It has taken me nearly 20 years of work to really accept / assimilate / accomodate / routinely include this way of trading as my nature is more suited to ‘start clicking them in and then start clicking them out’. And, btw, this system is still not ‘trend’ trading proper – I still got a ways to go before I’m ready for real trend trading. re the lines... Am currently starting to build a short position in the indexes and as previously discussed will use the right most line (see attached) to determine my ‘stay’. It should be noted that the right most ‘live’ line is extremely mutable - I have changed its angle 3 times in as many days on this half day chart and it may be considerably steeper by Monday. I would not be surprised or disappointed if most of the position is stopped out at the green line and look forward to putting more on at a higher level. I would also not be surprised if this ‘collectively inevitable’ next leg / crash down doesn’t analogue typically (in ndx/usd terms at least), but I do want to be positioned for the possibility. To review - the optimum exit methodology is determined by the system itself. Your bringing up the topic may indicate a need for just a tiny tweak to your exits rather than a need to make a big shift along the ‘stay – no stay’ continuum… hth Have a great weekend all.

Tams can correct me if I'm wrong but most likely you can just paste the text from PLA into appropriate TS 'object' and hit F3... (only?) caveat if the PLA is using a reserved MC word that EL doesn't and v v ... hth

Fun post... do you mean like Yes the market violates our expectations – but, c’mon, in a pleasing way? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzOQLDwUAC8&feature=channel]YouTube - Al Seckel: Your brain is badly wired ? enjoy it![/ame] And this is what the illuminati are doing to you? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigYWy2UmOY]YouTube - Keith Barry: Brain magic[/ame]

grey1, " assuming randon walk as a strategy" ??????????????? ... hopefully the noobies, including the quant noobies, perked their ears up on that one after the scent went straight to their hindbrains... My naivite' astounds me

re: "usage of Polycycles (which do not work, thus the debate here ). " What do you mean by do not work? thx, pro

Actually 'staying' with a third is only perfect "risk management strategy" ::helloooo: for a small subset of systems, good "risk management strategy" for another set of systems, at B.E. for another subset of systems, and disastrous for a sizable subset of systems. More would definitely see the ridiculousness of just throwing up a post like “The perfect risk managment strategy is to just take three ticks off every entry” than would see the ridiculousness of “exit two thirds of my position and let the other third run, and run, and run....” but they are equally ridiculous as general advice! ...not criticizing your posts and intentions in general - just beating the drum some more from my recent posts for TL posters to abstain from discussing exits in isolation from the system behind it... it may seem like it helps others but it doesn't... and it's ET like...

JBWTrader or anyone else wants to follow up on this - good places to start are: >For the theory, see The Profit Magic of Stock Transaction Timing by J.M Hurst >For applications on smaller time frames, Glenn Suprenard has / had CyclesWhatCycles If you're willing to go through it all there are about 10-12 really solid trading advances scattered throughout his material and for my cycles work (which is a lot less straight forward than his / Hurst's) I still use a lot of his look'n'feel conventions, formatting, and 'indicators', etc. btw For some this cycles stuff is easy ‘work’. For others, it is hard and tedious...

bf, I am now projecting that you are looking for techniques and methods to 'stay no stay' much earlier in swings (is that correct?) but will share this anyway regarding the use of 'trend' lines I mentioned yesterday. Used these 5 lines to stay long in the indexes (see attached 1/2 day timeframe) ---- up until a few days ago. ( … never mind that I am now a small percentage short and will add percentages via time no matter which way it goes (hopefully, all the way past 10,000 ) or that I would now currently use a close below the rightmost ‘live’ line to trigger working in another 20+% short) Don’t know if anyone else mentioned this, but you can also use ‘fibonacci’ type retracement numbers to ‘stay/no stay’ too. Even though I wasn’t cognizant of it at the time, it is (ultimately no) coincidence that the 2nd / horizontal line was just below a .38 retracement when it was first drawn, just below a .50 retrace midway through its course in late July, and near a .61 retrace at its end when the 3rd / middle line came into rulership on 8/7.

Ant, Thanks for the link. From the depth of the post I could tell you had a method that goes with your ‘staying’ and I certainly wasn’t just singling you out. I think anytime any of us posts about an exit method (win or loss) , those we are trying to help would be better served if the type of system that accompanies it is also outlined in the same post. An entry or exit method in isolation, whether self generated or learned from another, can result is inconsistency, floundering, and consequent loss. A trader will not and should not ‘surrender’ to a system without knowing at an expectancy level that the exit method is an optimal match with the entry method …and that’s part of where ‘easier said than done’ as bf said comes from, too.

Ant, Hope this post doesn’t take us seriously off topic but -----Had your post started with a description of the type of system your exit method goes with then it would have credence. Your advice to hold for the outliers is absolutely perfect – but only for certain limited types of systems. For other types of systems it would be absolutely disastrous. System dependent 1 or 2 point profit in ES can be a viable long term strategy. As I have posted elsewhere, generalized discussion of an exit method is useless. All exit methods, wins and losses, must be matched with the type of system. (btw same goes for optimal sizing too – it must be matched to the system) Good points about ‘grading’ ones trades. A long time ago, I committed to ‘grading’ my performance by how much I took from what was available. It’s almost unreasonably stringent. It’s humbling too… but it’s my way of making sure I don’t settle for mediocrity… bf, Back on topic, “f-’in anything can happen”. The systems that are pressed at the cusp of “stay / no stay” may or may not have sturdy enough ‘price action’ patterns to indicate how much run a move is going to have. Adaptive trailing stops may be indicated. Also, well placed ‘trend’ lines can keep you in for the nice runs (… keeping in mind these same two tidbits would be plain stupid to use for many types of systems.) Not many traders are into this but J.M. Hurst, etc. sees the markets as a summation of cycles. Note - This approach is seriously complicated (even compromised) by the individual cycles having variable ‘power’.. but if you watch the cycles of an instrument on about 12 different ‘timeframes’, sometimes you can see a quorum of currently and due to dominate cycles line up getting ready to ‘sum’ enough to move the odds of a strong move a little bit in your favor. hth

throughthemud, just saw your thread...who from / how did you learn elliott wave? thx