how to understand Al Brooks

[Frederick Foresight]

you resort to impugning their integrity in public, by casting aspersions about their identity and even questioning their religious views.

Let's please give the drama a rest, shall we?

I jokingly said you "sounded" a lot like No Doji, and has anyone ever seen both of you in the same room at the same time. If you cannot take an obvious joke, just say so and it won't happen again. "Casting aspersions..." Please.

As for the religious comment, I know people who will question my atheism but won't let me even address the possibility that there is no sky daddy. They are so defensive of their views that any stray notion is quickly dismissed. They won't even consider what they are overlooking in their world view, and only look at "evidence" that supports their thesis rather than what brings it into question. And so I'm fascinated that the sharpest thinkers here, who have fully grasped AB's and JH's otherworldly concepts and now sit atop their lofty perch, never once thought to ask themselves what draws them to (unnecessary?) complexity with vim and vigor while at the same time never once asking themselves why in all these years these trading gods never once presented evidence of their performance despite their claims of considerable success.

Yes, I know. "Who cares how much or how little he makes as long as what he has to say has value." Sure, but what is it that made you decide on embarking upon their especially arduous and twisted road without even once considering who pointed you there? I'm fascinated by the blind spot; by the faith. I find it cultish. And in the end, what is religion but a cult?

In any event, I suggest you reread that exchange for context. You were implying "sheer blind prejudice and ignorance" on my part:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/how-to-understand-al-brooks.320533/page-29#post-4649350

It's like you're actively looking to take offense.

As for the rest of your post:

Unfortunately, you're not "just" saying that, at all: if you were "just" saying that, the number of people objecting to your posts wouldn't continually be increasing, and you'd have a perfectly fair and reasonable point there, as far as it goes.

The problem here is with all the other things you're also saying, and more specifically the way you're saying them, and the fact that sometimes when people try to discuss them with you, you resort to impugning their integrity in public, by casting aspersions about their identity and even questioning their religious views.

And that's downright obnoxious behavior.

I suggest you review the thread from the beginning. I simply stood my ground as others stood theirs. The only difference is that my ground was evidently not quite as hallowed. And, therefore, I was suddenly "disrespectful," even though it was volpri who first asserted on page 7 that most of the people who didn't appreciate Brooks were not smart enough to understand him. I was no less respectful towards anyone than they were towards me. I'm all about Response Equity.TM

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I have FF on ignore, but I imagine that your reply must be in response to him. I knew he'd be by soon. He just can't help himself, which is sad. Because if he won't help himself, how is anyone else to help him?

My, zenemini, what a lofty perch upon which you sit...

And did I even once ask for any help? Is there perhaps a comprehension issue you'd like to discuss?

 

[zenemini]

I will say this: If you catch a trend, those H1's and H2's and H3's will keep you trading in the right direction on that 5 minute interval. It would seem if you take just that and the trend line advice from Brooks someone would do pretty well on the ES.

 

[truetype]

I will say this: If you catch a trend, those H1's and H2's and H3's will keep you trading in the right direction on that 5 minute interval. It would seem if you take just that and the trend line advice from Brooks someone would do pretty well on the ES.

If Brooks theory is that clear-cut, why hasn't it been automated? Presumably it would be a magic money machine!

 

[zenemini]

If Brooks theory is that clear-cut, why hasn't it been automated? Presumably it would be a magic money machine!

First, I do not know that it is at all correct to label it "Brooks's Theory." Secondly, I am sure it has. A programmer would probably use an ATR function to define the direction in which trades would occur, and then it would be simple to program an entry on what Brooks calls an H2.

 

[SkyChef]

First, I do not know that it is at all correct to label it "Brooks's Theory." Secondly, I am sure it has. A programmer would probably use an ATR function to define the direction in which trades would occur, and then it would be simple to program an entry on what Brooks calls an H2.

It's not that simple. I have it coded in ToS, ported to Sierra Chart & I still have to use my human computer to fill in what's missing in my codes.

Excerpt

"Now IF you can read and fully digest Brook's ideas and then actually manage to "algorithmize" them, then great!! I have thought about it lot and made a serious start trying to do it (not in python but in a language i am more familiar with), but i have not been successful with it, and i don't know (or even know of) anyone else who has done it either. One of the biggest hurdles is that Brooks makes heavy use of trend lines. Although it's not hard to automate trend-line construction, actually it is surprisingly difficult to automate trend lines really WELL, in a way that is fully the equal of what can be done by eye by a proficient human trader."

You can read it here ...

https://www.quantopian.com/posts/algo-from-the-three-books-by-al-brooks

 

[zenemini]

It's not that simple. I have it coded in ToS, ported to Sierra Chart & I still have to use my human computer to fill in what's missing in my codes.

Excerpt

"Now IF you can read and fully digest Brook's ideas and then actually manage to "algorithmize" them, then great!! I have thought about it lot and made a serious start trying to do it (not in python but in a language i am more familiar with), but i have not been successful with it, and i don't know (or even know of) anyone else who has done it either. One of the biggest hurdles is that Brooks makes heavy use of trend lines. Although it's not hard to automate trend-line construction, actually it is surprisingly difficult to automate trend lines really WELL, in a way that is fully the equal of what can be done by eye by a proficient human trader."

You can read it here ...

https://www.quantopian.com/posts/algo-from-the-three-books-by-al-brooks

I myself will not claim that I have "fully digested Brooks."

I do believe that humans will long hold the edge over AI when it comes to TA pattern recognition, and this includes trendlines. And so I agree with you that it is not so simple.
It was for that reason I conjectured that a programmer would have to use an ATR function to toggle the program between trading H2's uptrend longs versus L2's downtrend shorts.

Of course, my answer was in response to Truetype's question. Your response is much better than mine, and it is the direction in which I should have gone. There are TA concepts that test out profitably but are only exploitable through human intervention, i.e. they are not susceptible to the mathematical reduction that would be required to program them and automate them. FWIW, this is a view help by several well-known, highly successful CTA's with whom I have had the opportunity to hear discuss this topic (TA and human vs computers, not Al Brooks lol). Only on the internet do people make the assumption that if it works it should be subject to automation.

 

[truetype]

here are TA concepts that test out profitably but are only exploitable through human intervention, i.e. they are not susceptible to the mathematical reduction that would be required to program them and automate them.

Total nonsense.

 

[zenemini]

Total nonsense.

Somehow I knew you'd feel that way. We will simply have to disagree, as I know my position to be true, and I can tell you are not one to let the facts get in the way of your opinion. You can join FF in the ignore universe.

 

[themickey]

Let's please give the drama a rest, shall we?

I jokingly said you "sounded" a lot like No Doji, and has anyone ever seen both of you in the same room at the same time. If you cannot take an obvious joke, just say so and it won't happen again. "Casting aspersions..." Please.

As for the religious comment, I know people who will question my atheism but won't let me even address the possibility that there is no sky daddy. They are so defensive of their views that any stray notion is quickly dismissed. They won't even consider what they are overlooking in their world view, and only look at "evidence" that supports their thesis rather than what brings it into question. And so I'm fascinated that the sharpest thinkers here, who have fully grasped AB's and JH's otherworldly concepts and now sit atop their lofty perch, never once thought to ask themselves what draws them to (unnecessary?) complexity with vim and vigor while at the same time never once asking themselves why in all these years these trading gods never once presented evidence of their performance despite their claims of considerable success.

Yes, I know. "Who cares how much or how little he makes as long as what he has to say has value." Sure, but what is it that made you decide on embarking upon their especially arduous and twisted road without even once considering who pointed you there? I'm fascinated by the blind spot; by the faith. I find it cultish. And in the end, what is religion but a cult?

In any event, I suggest you reread that exchange for context. You were implying "sheer blind prejudice and ignorance" on my part:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/how-to-understand-al-brooks.320533/page-29#post-4649350

It's like you're actively looking to take offense.

As for the rest of your post:

I suggest you review the thread from the beginning. I simply stood my ground as others stood theirs. The only difference is that my ground was evidently not quite as hallowed. And, therefore, I was suddenly "disrespectful," even though it was volpri who first asserted on page 7 that most of the people who didn't appreciate Brooks were not smart enough to understand him. I was no less respectful towards anyone than they were towards me. I'm all about Response Equity.TM