ProfLogic's Method
- Thread starter El Guapo
- Start date
- Status
Prof,
Would appreciate your opinion on some (todays 1/13/09) trades I saw.
1- Saw a long around 9:35am. PPF and prime oscillation around 863 with trgt of old breach high around 866.
2- Saw another long around 10:04am. PPF and oscillation around 869 with target of old breach high around 872.
Am I getting the picture?
Still lots of day remaining.
Thanks very much.
Would appreciate your opinion on some (todays 1/13/09) trades I saw.
1- Saw a long around 9:35am. PPF and prime oscillation around 863 with trgt of old breach high around 866.
2- Saw another long around 10:04am. PPF and oscillation around 869 with target of old breach high around 872.
Am I getting the picture?
Still lots of day remaining.
Thanks very much.
Ok, thanks that will be helpful.
You are seeing the Trading Oscillations just not the strength associated with them. Both of your mentioned trades are valid but the strength (histogram) show oscillations above zero which are more risky. The safest trade so far today was a short about 11:11 with a target of 864.75. It was about a 3 point trade but safe.
I'll post a full chart later.
Can you explain WHY you believe the CVB are more/less choppy then price charts? Have you looked at the statistical properties?
In your example, utilizing your given indicator as a signal generator, the CVB charts results in 16 different changes in signal as defined by color whereas the price chart actually shows only 9 signal changes by my count. My conjecture is a less "noisy' series would result in fewer false signals, what do you think?
Now, different traders may focus on different frequencies but we all seek to maximize our profitability (in a perfect world). If as you postulate CVB's are less 'noisy' then this should result in greater profits for similar strategies?
I tested a simple MA crossover and found the CVB hold a slight edge utilizing a simple MA crossover. However utilizing a different strategy (one of the posted indicators in this thread actually) yielded the opposite result with the edge to the price chart....Admittedly the sample size was extremely small due to limitations for CVB historical data so if anyone can corroborate these results it would be helpful.
Thanks
I saw the short but I was early at 11:00am and got stopped out for minor loss when the histogram turner up again a few minutes later. Then I did not see any failure bar after the 11:11 oscillation so i did not take a trade.
How did you know to stay out of that sore thumb short at 10:59/11:00am?
Thanks again.
Just saw the 12:05pm oscillation with PF bar for short entry around 871 with target of 869ish.
If you read the thread I think I go over the differences in detail but in-a-nutshell, any chart that is built on inconsistently weighted bars (any bar where there is a varying number of contracts or shares traded per bar) is creating inconsistencies in the way those bars are read . . . regardless of a traders method.
I've intensely studied the logical properties not the statistical properties because I stay focused on objective results not the subjective results generated by statistics.
The number of oscillations isn't what matters but how consistently the oscillations are read collectively. Look at your charts and see the spikes your chart generates each evening. That is because the volitility slows down but that should have no bearing on how a chart is read.
Compare reading a book to reading a chart. If the book's verbage is consistent it makes no difference whether the book is read slowly or quickly. the meaning is still the same. Now read the same book where the same words are constructed to have different meanings. It don't matter how you read it it is a stuggle to understand what it means.
I've spoken to many traders that have switched from their typical bars to CVSB charts and are having greater success using them. You have to see it for yourself to believe it.
- Status