ProfLogic's Method

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from El Guapo:

Interesting claim!

Look, a 50DMA crossing a 200DMA is Objective and CAN be programmed (has been 100k of times). Does it work? Always! Because it is objective and no interpretation by a user is required. Does it make money? Yes, sometimes, but sometimes it loses money. You need to be able to "filter" the good Cross Overs from the bad. Its the filter that is subjective, and nearly impossible to program (many have tried I'm sure), but the Cross Over itself is Objective as as Black and White.
More...

A Moving Average crossover is an objective occurrence, yes but since it is based on averages the inconsistent outcomes it produces is what causes the need for a filter to be applied to it. Filters are subjective and destroys that process.

I need no filters because I use no averages.

If this . . . then this. Period.
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

'


I am open to learn, but see obvious logical inconsistencies in the claims made.

surf
More...

Surf - couple quick thoughts - just accept the gentleman's very generous offer. You have absolutely nothing to lose, and quite possibly, very much to gain. IMHO, unless you have previously expended the effort to understand the concepts and specifics of the method (iow, have read the book for starters), to continually show up and complain about the logical inconsistencies seems quite illogical here. Have a good one ...
 
Quote from El Guapo:

Looking at the sequence of bars that provide PF's, I find that to be too subjective, and would much rather ...
More...

Strangely I find the "PF sequence rules" to be 100% objective.

Applying it timely and executing it properly have their difficulties for a human, I can give you that. The faster the timeframe the harder to execute. By the time you "see" the sequence and are trying to press the button, 3-4-5 bars or more could have gone by, and the price is something else.

JW
 
El Guapo,

I consider myself one of the "veterans" of this method. I have busted my ass to learn it correctly, but back when I started it wasn't taught the way it is now. I went on my own for several years making no contact with anybody involved with Logic. I felt there was something there, but I struggled to make it work. So when I see people say "It works" or "It doesn't work" i always think it depends. Frankly, I don't relate to how the current crop of Logic traders execute it. Of course I watch to see if I can pick up a thing or two, but when it comes down to it I feel my way is better. What I mean is I found a unique approach to trading with Logic tools that doesn't violate the rules in any way. I also wanted an approach that pays me steadily each day where I don't require a big winner to pay for all the losers. I only trade ES so I don't want to watch 100s of markets for that perfect setup - that's just me. I get stressed out seeing open profits given back so I don't trade for 6-10 point moves. Basically I am saying I trade Logic and it works for me, but other Logic traders don't trade the same way so I have no idea if they would agree that "it works". It's all because of the timeframes we choose and the amounts we go for. My win % is high when I take the high prob setups ONLY, I don't mess around trying every swing I see. Then I ramped up my lots.

You new guys have things much better than when I started. Prof has listed the rules repeatedly and answers questions for free so I don't get why anyone would bitch. Perhaps if you saw how it was in '01 you'd understand. Back then we tried to identify the moves, but it was so subjective we often argued with each other. Use this forum while it lasts, can't beat the cost!

I realize if I wasn't so persistent I would've been one of those sore ex-Logic traders. Everyone has a different circumstance. Some have to make money now so when they don't find success within 2 months they'll slag Prof all over ET. I was fortunate I had a wife bringing in income during my beginning. So there was no rush, but I also realized I could blow up the account at any moment so I was careful. If you guys don't have time, like 1-4 years then you'll probably fail. Not saying this method is to blame because I am stating the stats based on all traders of all methods. There are as many Logic roadkills as there are for all other methods. Oh and if you do the method switching game you'll fail also, stick to something and get good at it. Look at it like if you put in the hard work you can make any method work, mine happened to be Logic. This is not a testimonial, I said I came up with my own approach with the Logic rules. So I meant it when I said Prof didn't make me profitable, the credit is all mine (and no offense Bill). :)
 
Quote from Whisky:

I do have a labelling option in ninjatrader that I'm still modifying, but the original works well in the majority of turns. It was written by a much more gifted programmer than myself. It'd be against my nature to give out someone else's work, so I'm afraid I can't share it in public.

I believe it has been shared with some individuals, so my guess is that if you reach/ask the right guy, he'll give it to you.

Remember to change the multiplier from 50 to 72 before plotting the Histogram (in the free NT whisky version), if you want your charts to more closely resemble Proflogic's.

JW
More...

No worries JW. As you said it is more easier to follow the price action (LL LH HH HL) with reference to the histogram. I changed the settings for multiplier as per your recommendation and now it exactly follows the one in MC.

I have found that divergence on any volume settings are very powerful on Histogram. Mostly divergence gives you the best entries and exits if you closely follow the price action. May be not always true but when it does you get big rallies. I will try to post couple of charts later on.

Regards,

hnk
 
Quote from voodster:

So I meant it when I said Prof didn't make me profitable, the credit is all mine (and no offense Bill). :)
More...

This is the entire premise of what I teach . . . YOU MAKE YOURSELF PROFITABLE THROUGH FOCUS AND CONSISTENCY!

I simply teach the rules . . . you made them your own.

Well Done!!
 
Anyone catch this ES rally? I did not take the 12:55 buy around 754 on the 2401 because the 16807 histo and ERG were negative.

There was a 16807 buy around 11:25am at the 758 area earlier. The 117 ERG and histo agreed.
 
Here are couple of charts showing divergence. I have particular rules for these setups and don't take all the trades showing divergence. Beauty of Prof's indicator is that you can come up with multiple variations. I will not go into too much details as this might be little off the main topic of the thread. Just wanted to share my experiences.

hnk
 

Attachments

This is also from yesterday. I generally see 2 to 3 setups like that everyday on a 2401 bar chart. On this one I was on a 2500 Bar chart and took the trade as soon as I saw the divergence. Please note that there were minor divergences before this particular one but those are not high probability.

Sorry Prof for going little off topic.

hnk
 

Attachments

Quote from hnk:

This is also from yesterday. I generally see 2 to 3 setups like that everyday on a 2401 bar chart. On this one I was on a 2500 Bar chart and took the trade as soon as I saw the divergence. Please note that there were minor divergences before this particular one but those are not high probability.

Sorry Prof for going little off topic.

hnk
More...

What is your buy point method after the diverg? PF bars?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top