Unsophisticated? Sure! Of course I will never ask the nature of it, but I am curious, how many rules does it have? My core mechanical system has just one, but I am looking at upwards of 30 other things to form the gestalt. (This is the kind of discussion I wanted to foster between CO and SCT traders, but nooooooo...)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Proposed Debate: SCT vs. CO
- Thread starter hypostomus
- Start date
Forgive me, Mr. H., but that is a bit more scrutiny than I am comfortable with. Besides, I don't think that this information would be of any particular value to you.
Sorry, didn't mean to pry. When I talk to successful traders, I am always interested in how complex their systems are, or if they trade multiple systems, etc. More philosophical than anything else, as I have a tendency to pile complexity on complexity, and periodically have to scale it back. Most of the people I talk are are trading relatively simple systems, FWIW.
I only trade a single set of rules, but I know very well what you mean by the urge to add complexity. It never seems like complexity at the time, posing instead as an additional meaningful ingredient. But, typically, either in testing or in the fullness of time, it reveals itself for the clutter that it is. That's why a periodic housecleaning is therapeutic for me. (I hope you do not regard me as a successful trader. Profitable, yes, but hardly what I would regard as "successful.")
Thanks for that observation. It always seems like one more tweak will make things perfect (I keep a couple of alternate systems running all the time just to watch them). And, ah yes, the addition of complexity! I'll bet Jack can relate to that. But I guess he forgot the housecleaning part!
Quote from PointOne:
It's not a few bars earlier that is important (although point 1's are the target) - it's getting in ON the new TL - if the trend continues you will never take a loss. And you know it, at the time. If you wait until the BO has occurred your entry is likely to suffer a retrace. Retraces do not go beyond Point 1, by definition. No drawdowns, ever.
[/B]
if i recall correctly the rules of SCT where:
Spot FTTS
1) if BO then hold
2) if FBO then exit
we expect to see volume increase on BO and lower volume on point 3s (retrace). u also mentioned that retracecs do not go beyond point 1. kind of logical if taht if your BO retraces past theh previous high then ud get out right?
I still say taht trading a FTT is essentially the same as tradign a S/R breakout except in fancy language. Trading a s/r breakout is i would imagine even easier than trading a FTT, which always seems to me to be rather ill defined concept. i suggest u read vic sperandeo, the FTT jack suggests is essentially the same thing, and vic describes in a much easier way.
The very fact taht SCT relies on stop reverse, makes it extremely difficult to control losses. I.e under traditional systems, one could cut back on trading looking only for the highest risk to reward ratio trades. By continually being in the market and stopping and reversing you essentially destroy the only asset you have against institutional traders: that of being able to wait on the sidelines.
From what ive seen of SCT also commissions would amount to a great amount, and thus far no1 has made mention of the effects of slippage and commissions on such a system which stops and reverse. Even if jack where to be able to make 3x daily range, i doubt his actual net figure after commissions would be that high, considering there are 15-20 stop reverse trades in "high level SCT". Commissions and slippage on these trades would amount to a sizeable figure each day.
All that said, i do utilize some concepts of jack's in my trading. I find that his volume analysis works extremely well on longer time fractals where noise is kept to a minimum. I estimate that a reasonable figure for SCT will be approx 0.7 -1.5x yearly range, the figure for most technical trading systems.
Hehe oh look folks.. another loser trying to convince us he has "the secret"... you must be looking for the Puretick thread Allmighty... you'll be right at home there with the other schleppersQuote from Allmighty1:
I might be willing to say something to help you folks out, or because I my patience is limited I might at any time, decide to leave you farm boys in the field to throw cow shit at each other.
A1
AllMurkyOne, you will notice that Thunderdog and I are both system traders, so at least for us it is not a matter of "Do you want to be right, or do you want to get what you want?". We have what we want. You will notice also that neither one of use makes grandiose claims as to performance. He put it well when he said "profitable, but not successful".
Thunderdog, wisely will not say, I being the resident fool will admit for the beneft of other fools here that I was pleased to take 5.5 NQ points yesterday in one trade with one contract. My objective is not to increase expectation, like SCT promises, but to increase win probability, so that scaling up is an issue of resource allocation, not of fear. I say that not to brag, but merely to indicate an alternative approach to trading to any who might be put off by high frequency trading.
Thanks for sharing that you use two EMAs. Extended inspection of price action and empirical fitting reveals that to be a useful tool. Best regards.
P.S.: I DO want to be patronizing. Schabacker preceded Edwards and Magee. You HAVE read him, haven't you, you old dog?
Thunderdog, wisely will not say, I being the resident fool will admit for the beneft of other fools here that I was pleased to take 5.5 NQ points yesterday in one trade with one contract. My objective is not to increase expectation, like SCT promises, but to increase win probability, so that scaling up is an issue of resource allocation, not of fear. I say that not to brag, but merely to indicate an alternative approach to trading to any who might be put off by high frequency trading.
Thanks for sharing that you use two EMAs. Extended inspection of price action and empirical fitting reveals that to be a useful tool. Best regards.
P.S.: I DO want to be patronizing. Schabacker preceded Edwards and Magee. You HAVE read him, haven't you, you old dog?
Jack recommended edition 7.Quote from Allmighty1:
It is interesting and amusing to read comments about trading with channels.
I have to wonder if anyone here has read "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends" by Robert Edwards & John Magee. I don't want to be patronizing, but as it turns out, channels have been in use for decades. (Really? You don't say?...No, its true...) Yet you folks (some of you anyway) seem to want to put those who use channels down for some reason.
..
A1