Need help coding Jh volume indicator for esignal
- Thread starter Learning_SCT
- Start date
- Status
Quote from ehorn:
You should be able to observe that the gaussians are a visual (vector) representation of the 1st derivative of volume. IHMO, this is very powerful when combined with PRV, the principles of the P/V relationship, and the sequencing of a price cycle throughout a trend.
and this is the finished version of the SCT trading method:
when i posted to youI offered two alternatives:
A logic diagrams
B debugging code already completed.
We now must move to plan C where I convert my comprehensive set of logic diagrams to JWW style or I convert a code you do not use to JWW style.
I have to get a hold of JWW's "New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems."
What you are planning to do have been done by two external organizations and one internal group; externally, one completed FA/TA equities system and another minimally organizated TA equities commodities.
The zorkieness you may be running into is that we do use the same building blocks (up to 70 times) as a compound (multivariant) heirarchy. When a person does an pardigm shift from one collections of principles and long term myths to an algorithm based on certainty it is like going from one pole to the other in information theory.
As rcanfiel says (now alias traderzones) quippingly, he "sees" space concepts. That was my MTS job at BTL and all programming was analog and multiple second degree polynomial solving using intersecting planes. Down in the simple range of only 800 DC amplifiers zero set 48 times a second.
I am used to developing models using logic diagrams. Simply because it was a tangible way to transfer information with symbols that are easily coded. The overall framework integrated the principles involved and a system emerged.
I am sure itis obvious to you that some people would love to cut and run with the system. That isn't going to be possible. It is inappropriate for this algorithm to be used by people who are not like minded. The name of the game is helping others.
You think my response to you was a wisecrack. I get it. When I coach programmers or I work through an administrator who coordinates programmers, they are very productive and do come to see the elegance of what is being proffered. More or less, when the results are "projected" (a common work review porcess), it is easy to se what coding adjustments are needed to tweak the effort. Often I simply sketch out logic sheets as corrections (iterative refinement) if required after a couple of passes on the tweaking.
I prefer to work with intermediate to expert traders who are also programmers to cut through the haze.
I'll check out JWW and add a parallel approach to what I do.
Learning SCT,
Nice chart.
We can work through, fairly rapidly the work you want to do. I've been through it many times.
Generally speaking there is going to be baggage in any thread that is doing work to achieve growth in trading knowledge and skills. The ramge of mentl and character attitudes runs the spectrum in ET. It like Lake Wobeggon.
Losers are dominant in trading. So there is a lot of struggle as people work their various ways to the exit. Those climbing the heights do occasionally rub again someone in free fall.
P and V are the two most important independent variables of trading. we take care to not get into inductive or circular reasoning. All codding takes care of the circularity problems and it is up to the modeler and then developer to not let induction enter the picture.
The literature is repleat with those who are writing about thier forays into unfamiliar territory. Information theory comes as close as anything to explaining the pool extraction paradigm. Certainty is the cure for probability. The software for the two has considerable overlap and much uniqueness in the more widely sepatated parts.
A mainframe analogy is appropriate. APL work is done in a mainframe context and the demarkation line of hardware and software can be shifted as much as the software language makes it possible. We do not use any of the languages mentioned by the person who thinks what I write is wisecracking.
One exception; we have contributued a great deal of script to put in fixes in wealthlab. Others who use PVT and SCT have worked in every conceivable languages.
At the onset, I need to comment on volume. I do not work logically in volume alone ordinarily. I do work in volume alone as a mind building process simply because of the three interconnected operaqtors in the mind which handle spatial, movement, and shape.
This thread is a computer oriented one. and I have interjected the litierature and the mind as adjuncts. the literature is generally a blind alley simply because of IP and TS concerns AS EXPECTED. People on the outside read and people on the inside do not write. Who writes? Journalists, biographers, academics on NSF grants, academics on endowment and foundation grants and hayseeds. Google rcanfiel for citations of outside writers and readers. Google marketsurfer. Google magazines in the trading industry. There is nothing there of import since all things of import are IP and TS.
This is the volume module:
as you can see there are three coding building blocks in the volume module.
the arrows name the functions codded in the building blocks. Thear are always two main ingredients ofr coding: information and coded output from other places like lookups and formulae, etc. Here you see several vertical aspects that relate to "context".
By the same token, you see that the building blocks also provide out puts that become "context" for other coded functions, either building blocks or functions.
I'' put up another module that the volume module services so you can get a better picture.
I also understand that this is nothing that anyone wants simply beecause they are not oriented to volume and its context the way the pool extraction algorithm relates to the markets.
In rcanfiel jargon and stress language and for people who think I am wisecracking, this is outer space and zorkiness.
It is, in fact, a wkaeup call. things aren't the way they seem to be as Alice's mathematically oriented writer wrote from the inside of things. I'm on the inside and I'm writing to you about the reality of markets and not the CW of markets. CW people observe me and the prcaticioners of PVT and SCT by a starndard from CW. CW as a standard makes us "unbelievable and "a astonishing."
Therefore, it may look like through some people's eye's that the volume module is just that.
Nice chart.
We can work through, fairly rapidly the work you want to do. I've been through it many times.
Generally speaking there is going to be baggage in any thread that is doing work to achieve growth in trading knowledge and skills. The ramge of mentl and character attitudes runs the spectrum in ET. It like Lake Wobeggon.
Losers are dominant in trading. So there is a lot of struggle as people work their various ways to the exit. Those climbing the heights do occasionally rub again someone in free fall.
P and V are the two most important independent variables of trading. we take care to not get into inductive or circular reasoning. All codding takes care of the circularity problems and it is up to the modeler and then developer to not let induction enter the picture.
The literature is repleat with those who are writing about thier forays into unfamiliar territory. Information theory comes as close as anything to explaining the pool extraction paradigm. Certainty is the cure for probability. The software for the two has considerable overlap and much uniqueness in the more widely sepatated parts.
A mainframe analogy is appropriate. APL work is done in a mainframe context and the demarkation line of hardware and software can be shifted as much as the software language makes it possible. We do not use any of the languages mentioned by the person who thinks what I write is wisecracking.
One exception; we have contributued a great deal of script to put in fixes in wealthlab. Others who use PVT and SCT have worked in every conceivable languages.
At the onset, I need to comment on volume. I do not work logically in volume alone ordinarily. I do work in volume alone as a mind building process simply because of the three interconnected operaqtors in the mind which handle spatial, movement, and shape.
This thread is a computer oriented one. and I have interjected the litierature and the mind as adjuncts. the literature is generally a blind alley simply because of IP and TS concerns AS EXPECTED. People on the outside read and people on the inside do not write. Who writes? Journalists, biographers, academics on NSF grants, academics on endowment and foundation grants and hayseeds. Google rcanfiel for citations of outside writers and readers. Google marketsurfer. Google magazines in the trading industry. There is nothing there of import since all things of import are IP and TS.
This is the volume module:
as you can see there are three coding building blocks in the volume module.
the arrows name the functions codded in the building blocks. Thear are always two main ingredients ofr coding: information and coded output from other places like lookups and formulae, etc. Here you see several vertical aspects that relate to "context".
By the same token, you see that the building blocks also provide out puts that become "context" for other coded functions, either building blocks or functions.
I'' put up another module that the volume module services so you can get a better picture.
I also understand that this is nothing that anyone wants simply beecause they are not oriented to volume and its context the way the pool extraction algorithm relates to the markets.
In rcanfiel jargon and stress language and for people who think I am wisecracking, this is outer space and zorkiness.
It is, in fact, a wkaeup call. things aren't the way they seem to be as Alice's mathematically oriented writer wrote from the inside of things. I'm on the inside and I'm writing to you about the reality of markets and not the CW of markets. CW people observe me and the prcaticioners of PVT and SCT by a starndard from CW. CW as a standard makes us "unbelievable and "a astonishing."
Therefore, it may look like through some people's eye's that the volume module is just that.
This is the P, V module:
Here you see the P and V modules come in as information (the horizontal input to a module is always information, facts that are certain)
this module outputs the extremely important trading analysis results on :
the mode; internals; and pace change
To get the certain outputs, a vertical input is needed. This formula is in base 2 and only takes certain infoprmation and only outputs certain information.
Here you see the P and V modules come in as information (the horizontal input to a module is always information, facts that are certain)
this module outputs the extremely important trading analysis results on :
the mode; internals; and pace change
To get the certain outputs, a vertical input is needed. This formula is in base 2 and only takes certain infoprmation and only outputs certain information.
notice how the OP's chart has a lot of information on it. Notoce how this information can be obtained from the two modules I have posted.
The module below adds some information to his charts when it is coded.
Such stuff is coded and appears on blogs and the blogs have subscribers. S&P 500, for example is a subscriver to the channeals annotating blog which was created from SCT trading.
What do these programmers and bloggers have in common? They are not stuck like people on the outside are. They are not readers and detractors. They DO and HAVE.
They are climbing to the heights. They rub against those who are slipping downward and out of site below. we all see the OCD types bellowing their reading results as outsiders sometimes do.
Everything in the pool extraction algorithm fits to gether as modules with building blocks inside. All modules have two inputs and one output. Building blocks are all totally codable.
The six levels of skill and knowledge are each served with a complete set of modules. As expected, the complex of modules feed upward from one level to the next. At the summit, all that is offered is extracted. As has been shown the algoirthm applied to three systems: PVT, SCT and sector rotation. We find that is has been a worthy goal to make it all workable in any market on any fractal anywhere in the world where sufficient liquidity exists.
As will be found out, reverse engineering is not in the cards. rcanfiel, now traderzones, has commented on why. If you have 20 years programming experience, it becomes very difficult to step outside of both the CW of the financial industry and the CW of programming. This comes from the administrative styles of both hierachies. Both are used to being right rather than rich.
The module below adds some information to his charts when it is coded.
Such stuff is coded and appears on blogs and the blogs have subscribers. S&P 500, for example is a subscriver to the channeals annotating blog which was created from SCT trading.
What do these programmers and bloggers have in common? They are not stuck like people on the outside are. They are not readers and detractors. They DO and HAVE.
They are climbing to the heights. They rub against those who are slipping downward and out of site below. we all see the OCD types bellowing their reading results as outsiders sometimes do.
Everything in the pool extraction algorithm fits to gether as modules with building blocks inside. All modules have two inputs and one output. Building blocks are all totally codable.
The six levels of skill and knowledge are each served with a complete set of modules. As expected, the complex of modules feed upward from one level to the next. At the summit, all that is offered is extracted. As has been shown the algoirthm applied to three systems: PVT, SCT and sector rotation. We find that is has been a worthy goal to make it all workable in any market on any fractal anywhere in the world where sufficient liquidity exists.
As will be found out, reverse engineering is not in the cards. rcanfiel, now traderzones, has commented on why. If you have 20 years programming experience, it becomes very difficult to step outside of both the CW of the financial industry and the CW of programming. This comes from the administrative styles of both hierachies. Both are used to being right rather than rich.
08-06-08 01:47 PM
From trader666:
And on the rare occasions when Jack slips up and describes something clearly enough to test it, it fails miserably... at which point Jack comes in with a whole bunch of new conditions.
You make three points here. Your portfolio back test of a while back failed. Since then, you have found out that you had additional information available to you to repair what you did. You have never posted a test since the first test you did.
For about 50 years I have been creating millionaires. Four generations of people have been successful.
Personally, I wish everyone to be successful. It is the choice of the person to be successful or not.
He's been playing this game for over 10 years. It's amazing how naive people must be to believe his BS.
You make two points. There are niave people who believe what I suggest. There are niave people who do not believe what I suggest. There must be two other groups of not niave people who either do or don't believe what I suggest.
You and I are in different groups. I am in a group of people who make money doing what I suggest. You aren't as you say.
Personally, I wish everyone to be successful. It is the choice of the person to be successful or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from TraderZones:
It is cryptic so others give up before they realize it is somewhere between a labyrinth and a Rube Goldberg machine
rcanfiel, now traderzones, has had a career where he has excluded himself from many opportunities. He states why in the above. The pool extraction algorithm began over 50 years ago and was built as modules containing building blocks from the ground up using a scientific approach and avoiding induction. Many many things follow the path of bench to pilot to batch to scale up to continuous processes. rcnafiel is a reader and I am a DO'er. He reads criptic, labyrinth and Rube Goldberg. His choice.
My choice was to trade from beginner to expert using what I created and refined. I know I can only trade 100,000 shares of a stock using PVT because I did it and knew the limit as I did it. I know how to select universes of stocks and trade them as a portfolio because I did what I created. I know how to trade commodities using a pool extraction system because I traded what I created.
His explanations of what he does is often among the lengthiest ET posts of the day
Aside from the grammar, the statement is correct. Those of us who post long posts do it for several reasons. If anyone can ask a good question , that person has been through many considerations and, therefore, he has dicovered some concerns and wants to deal with them. I find that I identify with questions of this sort. I have had to work my way through them over and over myself. rcanfiel, hasn't gone thorugh such experiences as the asker nor as I have. He is just a light reader and cannot think critically enough to even engage in anything but making statements like the ones you see from him over and over as a sophomoric manta.
There are some of us who answer from personal experience. One characteristic that we have is that we go to where the person is and we work to express how to get to where that person wants to be. It is not a superficial trip for those who are taking it. It is only superficial and niave for those who are taking it. what would have happened, do you think, if trader666 had posted his coding? Could he have gotten input to take it out of the niave and superf9icial category? Could he have ever gotten to asking questions on a test that shows it was not statisitically significant for the sample size? Can anyone imagine what rcanfiel's first question would have been if he had asked it when he first arrived on the scene? No he took the chicken route then tried to palm off a canned something or other for 250,000 dollars.
Trader666 took his backtesting career into the tank with one laughable test curve.
If it worked, Jack would happily be publishing his broker statements. His continued silence and avoiding the subject speaks much louder than his constant attempts to appear like the Guru
You haven't had the experience, I have. One quickly learns what prints do and how they affect one's life. It is a time consuming effort for an authority to evaluate prints. It, in my case, was an imposition imposed by a turkey. fortunately, the authority, a broker of big money, knew he could profit from the task imposed upon him. He WAS provided with T&S as well so his task was shortened. He also had the good fortune of new accounts as a consequence of his consequent prospecting offer.
You are still naive when it comes to colleagual relationships among traders of merit. If you ever meet any or read the wizard books, listen to how the conventions work. ET for some reason has a P&L thread. notice there is a convention followed by that class of traders as well. While they may not be traders of merit, they still have a set of conventions.
Phishing has a print aspect. those phishing do expect, because of their phishing brilliance to be able to reverse engineer "ANYTHING" they have ever seen. YOU TELL US ,CLEARLY, YOUR MIND ISN'T UP FOR PHISHING. I agree, you would not know how to "read" or process a set of prints if your life depended upon it.
How many people give open source materials, and run away from others who ask for clarity and evidence???
Its always fun to wrap a few seqwayed comments with humor. I am an open source provider by your and others designation. and in several contexts: LINUX openware (Paris financial group); platforms ; algorithms; and manual trading systems.
You raise two points: responding to those who ask for clarity and those who are phishing. I respond to those seeking clarity and I do not repsond to those whose occupation is phishing.
You and trader666 phish. T 28 went from phishing to OCD. you can read anyone's record here and see whether they clarify or phish. The two are mutually exclusive.
You often play the DD game as you phish. People who phish can't trade as a rule. they are shortcut oriented and that is antithetical to two major parts of becoming expert: they use a different part of their minds and they do not know how to learn to learn.
How did you screw up both of these things? you background predicated against learning to learn and you tell us by your career here you are mostly interested in getting OPM to fool away too.
People with money come to people they want to meet and they run away from people who are trying to get their money. I need people like you and trader666 and T28 to keep my traffic down. The people who want to meet me know how to find me. I have a name and they have services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From trader666:
And on the rare occasions when Jack slips up and describes something clearly enough to test it, it fails miserably... at which point Jack comes in with a whole bunch of new conditions.
You make three points here. Your portfolio back test of a while back failed. Since then, you have found out that you had additional information available to you to repair what you did. You have never posted a test since the first test you did.
For about 50 years I have been creating millionaires. Four generations of people have been successful.
Personally, I wish everyone to be successful. It is the choice of the person to be successful or not.
He's been playing this game for over 10 years. It's amazing how naive people must be to believe his BS.
You make two points. There are niave people who believe what I suggest. There are niave people who do not believe what I suggest. There must be two other groups of not niave people who either do or don't believe what I suggest.
You and I are in different groups. I am in a group of people who make money doing what I suggest. You aren't as you say.
Personally, I wish everyone to be successful. It is the choice of the person to be successful or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from TraderZones:
It is cryptic so others give up before they realize it is somewhere between a labyrinth and a Rube Goldberg machine
rcanfiel, now traderzones, has had a career where he has excluded himself from many opportunities. He states why in the above. The pool extraction algorithm began over 50 years ago and was built as modules containing building blocks from the ground up using a scientific approach and avoiding induction. Many many things follow the path of bench to pilot to batch to scale up to continuous processes. rcnafiel is a reader and I am a DO'er. He reads criptic, labyrinth and Rube Goldberg. His choice.
My choice was to trade from beginner to expert using what I created and refined. I know I can only trade 100,000 shares of a stock using PVT because I did it and knew the limit as I did it. I know how to select universes of stocks and trade them as a portfolio because I did what I created. I know how to trade commodities using a pool extraction system because I traded what I created.
His explanations of what he does is often among the lengthiest ET posts of the day
Aside from the grammar, the statement is correct. Those of us who post long posts do it for several reasons. If anyone can ask a good question , that person has been through many considerations and, therefore, he has dicovered some concerns and wants to deal with them. I find that I identify with questions of this sort. I have had to work my way through them over and over myself. rcanfiel, hasn't gone thorugh such experiences as the asker nor as I have. He is just a light reader and cannot think critically enough to even engage in anything but making statements like the ones you see from him over and over as a sophomoric manta.
There are some of us who answer from personal experience. One characteristic that we have is that we go to where the person is and we work to express how to get to where that person wants to be. It is not a superficial trip for those who are taking it. It is only superficial and niave for those who are taking it. what would have happened, do you think, if trader666 had posted his coding? Could he have gotten input to take it out of the niave and superf9icial category? Could he have ever gotten to asking questions on a test that shows it was not statisitically significant for the sample size? Can anyone imagine what rcanfiel's first question would have been if he had asked it when he first arrived on the scene? No he took the chicken route then tried to palm off a canned something or other for 250,000 dollars.
Trader666 took his backtesting career into the tank with one laughable test curve.
If it worked, Jack would happily be publishing his broker statements. His continued silence and avoiding the subject speaks much louder than his constant attempts to appear like the Guru
You haven't had the experience, I have. One quickly learns what prints do and how they affect one's life. It is a time consuming effort for an authority to evaluate prints. It, in my case, was an imposition imposed by a turkey. fortunately, the authority, a broker of big money, knew he could profit from the task imposed upon him. He WAS provided with T&S as well so his task was shortened. He also had the good fortune of new accounts as a consequence of his consequent prospecting offer.
You are still naive when it comes to colleagual relationships among traders of merit. If you ever meet any or read the wizard books, listen to how the conventions work. ET for some reason has a P&L thread. notice there is a convention followed by that class of traders as well. While they may not be traders of merit, they still have a set of conventions.
Phishing has a print aspect. those phishing do expect, because of their phishing brilliance to be able to reverse engineer "ANYTHING" they have ever seen. YOU TELL US ,CLEARLY, YOUR MIND ISN'T UP FOR PHISHING. I agree, you would not know how to "read" or process a set of prints if your life depended upon it.
How many people give open source materials, and run away from others who ask for clarity and evidence???
Its always fun to wrap a few seqwayed comments with humor. I am an open source provider by your and others designation. and in several contexts: LINUX openware (Paris financial group); platforms ; algorithms; and manual trading systems.
You raise two points: responding to those who ask for clarity and those who are phishing. I respond to those seeking clarity and I do not repsond to those whose occupation is phishing.
You and trader666 phish. T 28 went from phishing to OCD. you can read anyone's record here and see whether they clarify or phish. The two are mutually exclusive.
You often play the DD game as you phish. People who phish can't trade as a rule. they are shortcut oriented and that is antithetical to two major parts of becoming expert: they use a different part of their minds and they do not know how to learn to learn.
How did you screw up both of these things? you background predicated against learning to learn and you tell us by your career here you are mostly interested in getting OPM to fool away too.
People with money come to people they want to meet and they run away from people who are trying to get their money. I need people like you and trader666 and T28 to keep my traffic down. The people who want to meet me know how to find me. I have a name and they have services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're talking about 5 day exits, I've told you plenty of times why they were necessary (because your "paradigm" is BROKEN).
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2019252#post2019252
If you're talking about the fundamental screens, they were NOT in your original document (Tomorrow's Paper Today)... you added them AFTER THE FACT. Not to mention that something as fundamental as the price, volume relationship shouldn't need the training wheels of a prescreened "universe."
I did do fundamental screening to test your "rockets" however.
In a rare moment of clarity (Fri, Jun 21 2002 12:57am in misc.invest.technical) you described "rockets":
"To find a rocket you only have to have your quality universe (they are very high quality stocks with EPS and RS at 80 to 90 percentiles each. The only indicator that is significant is the Stochastic (5,3,3). What you look for on your daily charts are the stochastic rising deliberately to the 80% line and overshooting it and then critically damping on the line; perturbations will cause it to look entwined on the line. There you have it."
This was my methodology:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1078242#post1078242
I don't remember which variation this was, but here's a typical equity curve:
P.S. I'm not as I say? LOL!!! What do I claim? LOL!!! YOU'RE the one claiming you're minting millionaires, making 3X daily range routinely, that you have a world wide network, etc.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2019252#post2019252
If you're talking about the fundamental screens, they were NOT in your original document (Tomorrow's Paper Today)... you added them AFTER THE FACT. Not to mention that something as fundamental as the price, volume relationship shouldn't need the training wheels of a prescreened "universe."
I did do fundamental screening to test your "rockets" however.
In a rare moment of clarity (Fri, Jun 21 2002 12:57am in misc.invest.technical) you described "rockets":
"To find a rocket you only have to have your quality universe (they are very high quality stocks with EPS and RS at 80 to 90 percentiles each. The only indicator that is significant is the Stochastic (5,3,3). What you look for on your daily charts are the stochastic rising deliberately to the 80% line and overshooting it and then critically damping on the line; perturbations will cause it to look entwined on the line. There you have it."
This was my methodology:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1078242#post1078242
I don't remember which variation this was, but here's a typical equity curve:
P.S. I'm not as I say? LOL!!! What do I claim? LOL!!! YOU'RE the one claiming you're minting millionaires, making 3X daily range routinely, that you have a world wide network, etc.
- Status