All else being said, the comments are largely irrelevant. 50 pages of alter egos and lines drawn in the sand. The backtest is largely irrelevant. I have emphasized that the framework for backtesting is understandable and useful a la Acrary simply because it approaches the market like a game of 21. The royal screwup is most do not consider that there are only 52 types of cards all with characteristics (ie. face values, color, suits).
All else being saiid, all indicators and all analysis has value. The real line in the sand is HOW and WHEN they operate. After some brief analysis, I figured out how to make indicators work and as usual they require the user of the instrument to understand how it functions. Looking at the output is meaningless unless you understand how it derives the output.
This is the royal screwup that i am finding in the invisible ink that spyder is addressing. There is the stress of backtesting.
So tell us how folks were backtesting before the advent of PC's. If one cannot believe easy's results, then I will take the mirror approach and say your backtested results are photoshopped given that the argument that easy and spyder's
forwardtested results are photoshopped.
. There is the mention of the scoring but the screwup on the backtester is the difference between their sampling as opposed to streaming of the information. So this all sounds like BS. I know for a fact that Spyder, 100% understands the cycle scoring and how it broadly overlays for a given context (ie. fractal). He is not concerned with the numbers but rather the sequence of PV combinations. Breakouts (P) do not occur on low volume. Non performing companies do not perform (P) because masses do not take interest (V). Trends do not establish themselves witht he cycling of volume. Apparently in ET, this is all BS...
What it all boils down to is screwups of understanding. A backtest on non-performing stocks immediately fails the case due to the failure to qualify quality stocks. Sweeping generalizations in and of themselves are not the issue, however, understanding the boundaries of how something is to be applied is. Just to be CRYSTAL clear, it is no secret that General Relativity fails at the particle physics realm as evidenced by black holes (ie. a massively small object given it's mass density). Physicists know explicitly where the limits of application are for General Relativity. In other words, run trajectories into a black hole and your screwed within the event horizon. Throw a sattelite into orbit and the application is remarkably precise. The largely nonsensical comment about the scoring is similarly screwed up when the boundaries of it's application aren't considered. I'm sure Newton and his crew would not have told Bohr and his crew where the screwed up. However, both would surely acknowledge where the boundaries of the knowledge were and weren't applicable... Context dear watson... CONTEXT!
Candy ass MAK!
PS...
To the ghostwriter inquiring about V leading P. Even at the finest level, PV is CRYSTAL CLEAR on the DOM... Look at the size values. That size number has to reach zero before you get your new P value. Try to backtest it. You will not find any ordinary program to backtest it because the software writers have not figure it out yet. It is a dog chasing it's tale because software developers do not develop it unless there is demand for it. So that DOM number and it's sizes get's filled BEFORE you get a new P. Filling happens two ways, with V or with anti-V (ie. inventory being removed). If you watch carefully those fake bids, they reappear elsewhere for very common sense reasons as opposed to the percieved deception that the majority believe. Thus, it is irrefutable to have a new P before you had any V. Check your tape. This is the rule with few exceptions on your tape. Check the 40,000 or so ticks you see on your ES T&S. Also not that your T&S has also changed since ticks are no longer individual transactions but collections of transactions. In other words, an order of 253 contracts is likely to contain a dozen and even dozens of order which so happened to execute at the specified tick value... You can pull up the globex memo on "tick aggregation" that was sent around late last year...
