A Proposed Debate: SCT vs. CO

JJ, as I recall, Elder advocates the use of multiple time frames, but I don't think that his "triple screen" concept necessarily requires it. If memory serves, markets are screened first with a trend indicator, then with an oscilator reading going against the trend, and finally with price moving in the trade direction (or his own "Force Index" if memory serves). Each of these screenings can be performed using the same time frame. I very much like the concept, but without the indicators.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

JJ, as I recall, Elder advocates the use of multiple time frames, but I don't think that his "triple screen" concept necessarily requires it. If memory serves, markets are screened first with a trend indicator, then with an oscilator reading going against the trend, and finally with price moving in the trade direction (or his own "Force Index" if memory serves). Each of these screenings can be performed using the same time frame. I very much like the concept, but without the indicators.
More...

Yes T-Dog.

Part of his criteria is also that trades must confirm on at least two time-frames for a trader to enter a position. However you can quantify that to improve your trading is what is going to work for you.

It's great reading and I find that his concepts really work for me in my trading.

JJ
 
Quote from Allmighty1:

Apparently you folks think it is more productive to argue about who said what........I will step back....You all let me know how this works out for you.....:D

A1
More...
Lost another round, eh?
 
Quote from JimmyJam:

Yes T-Dog.

Part of his criteria is also that trades must confirm on at least two time-frames for a trader to enter a position. However you can quantify that to improve your trading is what is going to work for you.

It's great reading and I find that his concepts really work for me in my trading.

JJ
More...
OK, thanks. I read his Trading for a Living in the mid-90s, so I guess I'm a bit hazy on some of the details.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

OK, thanks. I read his Trading for a Living in the mid-90s, so I guess I'm a bit hazy on some of the details.
More...

It's definitely worth the re-read.

All of system(s) that I've designed based on his principles has made money, doc knows his sh*t.

JJ
 
Thunderdog, the two estimators I use, very close to the same as EMAs, often keep me out of trouble when there are no classical TA features to trade. I much prefer double tops/bottoms at HOD/LOD, H&S at same, and weak penetrations of the HOD/LOD, blowout tops/bottoms. But there are days like yesterday when none of the above were compelling, so I stuck with the admittedly less profitable crossover system.
 
All Merciful One, I am consistently profitable. By "success", I mean getting rich trading, as I think Thunderdog does. Which in the long run is merely a matter of trading larger. I am in no hurry. A few more months of consolidating what currently works for me will be time well spent in developing confidence. And I am not quite ready to quit my day job, the money is too easy. Best regards. And please do keep regaling us with your unsubstantiated trading superiority. ET is the right place for you to be.
 
I will second the idea that Elder's book is worth reading more than once. Force Index is worthwhile and much more advanced than Jack's volume indicator. And, yes, triple screen can produce excellent results. If you trade with the weekly/daily/intraday charts in mind you can do well -- always bearing in mind where support/resistance are on those charts.

His book also gives algorithms for a lot of old school indicators, which are useful if you're into programming. Highly recommended! Not to mention that he writes much more clearly than Jack.

By the way, he has a section on channel trading!

So, Hey! Why are people reading Jack?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top