zdo

Yes Jurik MA is great! Has it ever been beaten? ...btw for a 'low cost' alternative that tracks as smoothly and only occasionally lags JMA turns by one bar - see https://www.tradestation.com/Discussions/Topic.aspx?Topic_ID=77583&SearchTerm=a%20better%20moving%20average&txtExactMatch= zdo

UrmaBlume, re: What do you mean by phase? Many thanks. zdo

darth ?And who's nitpicking? It really doesn't seem like 'self interest' has all that much fired up precedence when a programmer like AgeKay posting is actually 'outing' the inefficacies of hiring off the shelf programmers for trading applications. btw, wouldn't 'good' apply to AI too? "...just throw as many ideas at ( a lousy inappropriate, not 'good' (but still probably expensive)) AI as possible" or don't do a 'good' job with the data transforms and you can train it until the wheels come off and it will never produce consistently. AI is still just a fancy word for optimization ... on hidden, unseen parameters yes but it's still just optimization at this point... and there is such thing as 'bad' optimization...

All several others have alluded to, day to day correlations (positive or negative) are bound to volatility. Using the coefficient of correlation figure for the whole population between data streams can be misleading. When indexes are above three std dev’s, just about everything hooks up / correlates(+ or -) with indexes - as fear of getting ‘caught out’ spreads through the collective – ie absolute correlation can go very high. And below 1 std dev, even those with higher relative ‘average’ or composite correlation, tend to drop off in correlation significantly and march to their own drums. Examples are Treasuries, CL, AGs, FX, etc. See The Handbook of Portfolio Mathematics by Ralph Vince circa pg 290 zdo ‘I believe we can continue the Great Society while we continue to print more money twenty four hours a day’ Weimar Bernanke

don’t have much time here and already closed TS down but 1 use iff or related conditions to make sure each of the closeData[n] is not zero and if it is, assign an appropriate value to it ie make sure each of the data streams actually has a value at 830 etc 2 make sure your data starts soon enough to have large enough number of records by 830 and maybe use currentbar condition - this prob not an issue here but... If you need it, hopefully someone can help you over the weekend.

I make the most intelligent decision I can...and back it up with a few bucks. That's poker.

janlani, using thrunner's code you could probably do something like in inputs change myDate(nDate) to MyTime(0930), and change If date = MyDate then... to if time = MyTime and change If date >= MyDate then to if time > MyTime {and barstatus(1) = 2 {if you only need it to update at end of bar}} then... and it should take off at the opening from 'rebase' hth zdo

Apply what you've learned while we're still in a more 'volatile' period and when 'volatility' calms adapt and learn to thrive in that environment. The only traders who aren't learning are the ones who have left trading completely.

lordbinder, In case candlewhisperer never answers, it looks like (uncontained to the left and containing to the right) large volume large candle bodies form his zones... first big dark body forms the 3rd. ... hopefully he will explain it more accurately and in more detail... zdo

Have you been reading Larrry William's mail ??

Kiwi, while we’re on “family oriented”, after all these years you’re still always picking on us tards who ride the short bus ? Glad you got in on the fun part - sorry you don’t get it on the serious parts… Anyway – Abraham Maslow, a human potential pioneer, noted that the gifted therapist / helper Carl Rogers had reported that successful help / therapy raises the average score of a patient on the Willoughby Maturity Scale from the 25th to the 50th percentile. Maslow then asks about going from the 50th upward and concluded “You reach a point where you have to do it all by yourself”. Do you agree? And as a group, traders seem to lean toward self reliance anyway… might there only be a small range on that Scale to which it would even occur to them to ask for help. Btwn 0 to 25 - very low chance of considering the option, blind to it. Btwn 25 and 50 - only a small segment of this range would seriously consider it, 50+ - on their own anyway. Realistic? Hopefully, my posts have not derailed AbeSmith’s generous attempts to help. I appreciate it. Hopefully he is helping a private contact as we speak… "The Regular Session has opened."

This detrender tracks pretty well within fixed bounds but just for snicks I put slightly dynamic / variable ones on it… those who use the extremes might find it useful… btw daedalus the skeleton for alerts is started in the fixed band case part of the code. No warranty expressed or implied but it should help get you going… hth [LegacyColorValue = true]; {Value Chart Indicators. And yes thanks and credits to David Stendahl, et al RFA is Relative Float Axis VU is Volatility Unit } Input: FixedBand(7.5), Length(7), sdLength(21 {89} {43}), StDv(1.61), {why?} bandType(2) //bType 0 = none 1 fixed 2 bb-like 2 Keltner-like (not implemented) ; // End Input Var: RFA(0), VU(0), RfaH(0), RfaL(0), medRfa(0), Avg(0), SDev(0), UpperBand(0), LowerBand(0) ; // End Var RFA = Average(MedianPrice, Length); VU = (Average(Range, Length))* 0.2; if VU = 0 then VU = 1; RfaH = (High-RFA)/VU; RfaL = (Low-RFA)/VU; Plot1 (RfaH, "VCHigh"); Plot2 (RfaL, "VCLow"); if bandType = 0 then begin // select case noplot(3); noplot(4); end; // if bandType = 0 if bandType = 1 then begin Plot3 (FixedBand, ""); Plot4 (-FixedBand, ""); if RfaH > Plot3[0] and RfaH[1] <= Plot3[1] then Alert( "UpperValueBoundTapped") else if RfaL < Plot4[0] and RfaL[1] >= Plot4[1] then Alert( "LowerValueBoundTapped") ; end; // if bandType = 1 if bandType = 2 then begin Avg = XAverage(RfaH,sdLength); SDev = StdDev(RfaH, sdLength); UpperBand = Avg + StDv * SDev; Plot3 (UpperBand, ""); Avg = XAverage(RfaL,sdLength); SDev = StdDev(RfaL, sdLength); LowerBand = Avg - StDv * SDev; Plot4 (LowerBand, ""); { if RfaH > Plot3[0] and RfaH[1] <= Plot3[1] then Alert( "UpperValueBoundTapped") else if RfaL < Plot4[0] and RfaL[1] >= Plot4[1] then Alert( "LowerValueBoundTapped") ; } end; // if bandType = 2 //keltner-like {if bandType = 3 then begin //medRfa = (RfaH - RfaL) / 2; Shift = Factor * AvgTrueRange( atrLength ) ; UpperBand = Avg + Shift LowerBand = Avg - Shift ... }

Thank you, Abe. That is a very generous and considerate offer and I may actually take you up on it. My first problem is that I’m having a problem with the problem orientation and I seriously don’t want to have a problem with problems anymore. Can you help me / us with that? "The regular session has ended…"

Isn't the win/loss ratio system / edge specific? Certain systems do just fine at 30% W/L Others need > 50%, etc Finding just any old edge will not work. The type of system one can 'manage' / 'stick to' / 'implement the appropriate mentality' is determined long before he or she begins trading...One must find an edge that really fits him or her individually - at ‘true nature’ level. That is why I recommend not separating their discovery and development at all… not making one more important than the other because it seems first temporally or in priority. grasshopper had to grab that pot with both forearms...

On one level - yes. If you are my psychic friend why haven’t you called me? … especially after I had that premonition you would be calling with help? …and even more especially since you already know what I need to change. On another level - no. If you are my psychological friend…and even more especially since you already know what I need to change…

Please help. What are my issues ?

Yep, any and all trading systems are profitable - if you sell enough copies...

Darth, et al, Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the original post / question was making the differentiation on time frame / holding period. For example, for long time frame position trading I do seasonals and I always go home net the core position (unless I’m being stupid or get an extremely lucky intraday parabolic move). But intraday, when conditions are right, I may lift or offset part of a position to hopefully build a better cushion for the core seasonal trade. (In fact, needing to build the cushions and needing to rescue some positions was why I ‘learned’ shorter time frame trading in the first place. It takes less than zero brains to be a seasonal trader... just put on the position on the right date, then put the monkey in restraints until it's time to take the position off...) With a ‘portfolio’ of multiple systems (correlated or not), the issue is the sizing of each individual system – which I think is beyond the scope of this topic. Btw, does anyone have any articles or references on sizing in a ‘portfolio’ of strategies – I haven’t seen much on that topic… If anyone has anything on it please open a thread. Thanks. Have a great weekend all

Wasn't it something like 'good, fast, cheap - pick two. You can't have all three" ?

Yes. In futures, I use two accounts - one for shorts and one for longs to facilitate these kinds of tactics. Prevents a lot of confusion In fx, you have much more sizing flexibilty so lifting part of a position for a scalp works just fine. Actually did one on ~10% of EJ position this morning... Beginners beware though - these kinds of maneuvers and multiple accounts and etc. can fuel costly delusions :helloooo:

... and bump +10 his book

Could this be some kind of subconscious JuJu ?? ...whoosh

BF, I'm a little late to this thread but I have some serious caveats to make you aware of - and I've learned the hard way. Programmers who do not understand trading will generally not be able to ultimately fulfill your real specs... they imagine too many things that are based on their own propensities instead of yours, they 'quickly' form concepts that are so foreign to reality and your understanding and then unconsciously impose them into the project... and professionals are just as subject to this tendency than undergrad 'stars'. From my own experiences, the best outcomes are generated from enrolling above average programmers who want to learn to trade. You actually teach them your style of trading on their own time. You must be willing to constantly corral them back in to your purposes - because they will be constantly flitting off after their own impulses and ideas. Once they 'get it' from a trading, not programming, point of view (and many never will btw) then spec out the project to them, pay them well (or partner up in some form in some cases), stay on top of the development especially making sure that certain digital replications of your mental processes aren't just programmatic work arounds or approximations that subvert the whole thing... The percentage of progrmmmers who can adjust to the episodic chaos, general uncertainty and mutability, and non normal 'distributions' of the markets is very small... most will not be able to make the necessary leaps ...now that I've gotten started I will stop Basically the odds of hiring an off the shelf programmer even a 'financial' one and making it really work are small If you want to discuss this approach further PM me. All the best zdo

Having been at this game for many years, I can definitely understand your ‘tipping point’ experiences. For years, I would run into that virtual ‘wall’ sometime in the trading day. The easy answer for these junctures is mental tiredness and consequent degradation of focus and perspective. But that answer stopped working for me – for a variety of reasons I won’t go into here. The more comprehensive (and complicated) answer that developed goes something like this – individuals are subject to ultradian rhythms that are cyclic pulsations in mental processing – it is a series of actual trances we pass through during each day. Culture, ego, and clock time train us to suppress our sensitivity, responsiveness, and alignment to these rhythms*. Furthermore, maladaptive habits / patterns can form in reaction to shocks / trauma and / or deprivation that further block our resonance with these natural rhythms**. I am positing that in some of these trances it is literally impossible to ‘step outside’ and be immune to the ‘collective’ and to the operation of ‘normal’ biases (ie what would be normal in most social arenas) - and those are times when a trader is susceptible to 'make' mistakes, bad trades, get out of sync, etc. - ie it's not just fatigue 'tipping' Proficient traders are ‘healthy’ in awareness of and relating to those rhythms and it is a much, much larger factor in trading success than most believe. Instead of focusing on the various grades of 'why the #v(k did I do that??', it is better for me to focus on moving into a positive relationship and re-establishing a synchrony with those rhythms... When I investigated this with other traders, I found a cloud of cultural misdirection– good traders who do it without knowing they do, (and assuming everyone else does it too); the dominating prominence of system and the emphasis on entries in the mentality of most traders; and of course the hoard of traders who say just trade, execute well, use ‘discipline’, and ignore all the ‘psychological’ crap – basically attributing trading success to anything but the ‘trances’. While the tipping point threshold after prolonged high levels of concentration is a most practical explanation, I find that the personal rhythms model is even better and that doing the work of identifying and aligning with those personal rhythms is a more comprehensive and adaptive (albeit more arduous) approach in the long run. “…it’s not the markets, it’s not you and the markets, it’s just you…” Mark Douglas *Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg Joseph Chilton Pierce **Emotional Anatomy Stanley Keleman

zdo That is so sensible and so reasonable – but I disagree. I’ll say it again DB. I think you’re an ‘outlyer’ (actually you are more like an ‘outhonester’ ) who believes you are in the central stddev’s and thinks that most will have your same general set of challenges – :haha: ‘typical genius’. It is a mistake to delay the ‘mental’ work for the follow-up / clean up / tarpits / emotional crap encountered in execution after one has developed a strategy – until the things you have aptly described as “unable to follow a perfectly good strategy once he has it in the can” and “People engage in all sorts of self-sabotaging behaviors” occur. I’m saying that most need to do both ‘edge’ work and ‘mental’ work concurrently – FROM DAY ONE! You are making a huge mental jump by saying that one should never deal with ‘sychicological’ issues until a strategy is developed or until issues come up. Why? By discounting each person’s preexisting dispositions and patterns and accentuating focus on studying and mastering market action only, by discouraging beginners from bringing to awareness the unconscious beliefs they bring to their ‘research and development’ that will literally shape what they are able to perceive and develop, by encouraging them to forever accede to that pre-existing set of limitations – you are actually shepherding them into the herd of loosers :helloooo: instead of possibly speeding them through strategy creation a whole lot faster with some of that “unnecessary” “introspection” (did you do some and forget you did it ???). And btw, the kind of mindful awareness I’m encouraging has little time or room for “psychological mumbo jumbo”. Be aware that you are giving ‘mental’ side advice by advising beginners to ignore the ‘mental’ side. I too am giving ‘mental’ side advice by advising beginners to start in the middle and give both sides adequate energy each ‘developmental’ day… else… at best... jonbig04 (who was quoting ‘Mike’ Douglas ?) ...and at worst...