ProfLogic's Method

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from chuckt101:

One thing I want to caution is at first glance, it may seem you are correcting a mistake and catching some things the computer missed, but if the original code was perfectly calibrated to ProfLogic's code, you are introducing an element that will affect the outcome. What I mean is, ProfLogic has defined through his years of testing a threshold for "prime" oscillations, i.e. the moment at which the strength of price movement becomes significant. If you are attaching labels that shouldn't be there, according to PL's code, research, and backtesting, you have effectively lowered this threshold.

I will also say, during my testing of Whisky's posted code, I found the ERG (for all fractals) do not precisely mimic that of PL's. Most of the oscillations have very similar (probably statistically equal) amplitudes, though I found inconsistency in some amplitudes being greater and some being smaller - I compared side by side the oscillations created by Whisky's ERG for NT with PL's screenshotted ERGs for several days.

Since nothing in life is truly free, anyone wishing to seriously use this ERG method (unless they have an exact replica of PL's setup) will have to do some extensive testing to determine a more applicable threshold for their system. Otherwise you'll probably end up being one of the guys that come back in 3 months trashing ProfLogic :p
More...

The issue is that to really get the labels perfect, one needs to use two data streams (i.e. 2401 and 343). If one doesn't do that, there are ways to approximate with one data stream only. Some approximations are better than others. That's all.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

JW
 
This is an interesting topic, one that I too, have given some thought to over time.
Bill uses an indicator to determine the distance created from one label to the next along with an arbitrary number addition to add to the momentum or trend, the "7" ticks.
I have seen others use a percentage of price movement to determine direction/momentum, Roy Kelly for example. Still other use a fixed number of ticks/points to determine direction such as one very successful trader from Australia whose name I forget.
All are based on price rotating from high to low and high again. To me these are the best ways to trade the S&P in particular. The problem however with all of these methods is they absolutely kill you in strong trending moves, such as the downturn on Friday where the 2401 histo oscillated in prime several times.
For all of these methods you are left with the biggest factor of all, subjectivity. Subjectivity is what prevents a successful method from transferring from the originator to the student.
 
Quote from mephistoII:

Let me preface this with the thought that it may be difficult, and perhaps even pointless, to question the creation of labels in hindsight, given their realtime nature of migrations, etc. I suppose I am seeking some feedback on my own understandings as much as anything. I didn't observe the following in realtime, so my assumptions may well be erroneous. As seen on the attached 2401 chart, I have drawn two long arrows to the resistance and support oscillations where I would have expected to first see PPF labels, for the reason shown on the 343 chart. I would have further expected the support PPF HL label to migrate to the 675.00 price point w/ the ensuing price action. My question is - why would not the 681.00 price point be labeled a Breach HH, if indeed the earlier assumed PPF LH was created? Thanks for any clarification on this.
More...

If you pay attension to the Trading Decision Chart and then move to the Entry Chart it will be less confusing.
Remember that the labels are being generated from calculations and not from the actually osccilations off the fastest chart.
I repeat . . . this can be accomplished using dual data streams on some charting software packages but some won't allow that. MultiCharts will but every chart you "Embed" with multiple data streams increases the processor useage by 7 times.
Bottomline, it is necessary to watch BOTH charts at the same time.
 
Quote from chuckt101:

Heh, point of my post was if your screen is different from PL's, your decisions will be different, hence your outcome will not be the same as his.. Not an opinion - fact

Not saying whether this is good or bad. As I mentioned, careful objective testing is a must at this point :)
More...

I absolutely agree but this is why we trade the chart WE are watching. The data will vary from person to person based on the amount of data they have in their charts.

Individuals that are using; MultiCharts, eSignal, my Workspaces and indicators have nearly identical charts. As we vary our specific tools the oscillations will vary slightly.
 
Quote from Wi!s0n:

Is there a way to prevent this kind of trade? (understand losses are inevitable)
More...

Yes, wait for the next Entry Chart ERG oscillation & PF sequence for the entry.
or
trade slower charts.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Yes, wait for the next Entry Chart ERG oscillation & PF sequence for the entry.
or
trade slower charts.
More...
OK, is there an explanation for that answer? (understand slower chart part)
 
Quote from Wi!s0n:

OK, is there an explanation for that answer? (understand slower chart part)
More...

The Entry chart entry is suppose to occur when the Histogram is in Prime. What you showed is:

2401 Trading Decision Chart - Prime Trading PPF toward Prime Trading Breach, Histogram Oscillation in Prime (All Perfect)

Next Step is the Entry Chart to give you an ERG Oscillation in Prime . . . it didn't. By the time the Histogram Oscillated the Entry ERG had already oscillated and moved out of Prime. You simply triggered a PF Sequence after the 2401 Histogram Oscillated. If you would have waited until the Entry Chart ERG oscillated in Prime there would have been no entry because your PPF would have turned into a Breach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top