ProfLogic's Method
- Thread starter El Guapo
- Start date
- Status
Entry can be based on two choices . . .
1st Choice - Enter on ERG oscillation and PF sequence on your Entry Chart in Prime immediately as the Histogram on the Trading Decision Chart enter into Prime.
2nd Choice - Enter on PF sequence on your Entry Chart in Prime immediately after the Histogram on the Trading Decision Chart oscillates in Prime.
I tell traders that when they are just beginning to take the 2nd choice trades because they contain less risk but as they become more comforatable with reading price and as they build their confidence to move to the other one.
Buy the way . . . nice clean chart!!
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.
The labels on the trading chart (2401) are generated by using a calculated entry chart ERG, sometimes there are differences between that and the ERG that is generated by the actual entry chart. This appears to be an example of that. Since the calculated entry ERG did not oscillate and create the new PPF Labels you did not get the Breach Label. Rather, the PPF LH label was created based on a comparison to the previous oscillation label. I hope that makes some sense.
I have attached a chart with the generated ERG plotted, it comes very close, but does not oscillate. This is with Ninja of course, but it illustrates the point.
TG
Thanks a lot for your response, TG. Yes, it does make sense, and I was somewhat aware of the calculated Erg. No doubt I was splitting hairs here - just trying to keep my footing on the slippery slope of the learning curve 
I think you are right Mephisto. I think it depends what data and what program you are running. Most data issues can be resolved with code to catch all the swings. Programming the nuances is very hard work. There were swings exactly as you described them, in my opinion.
You can view this as a sign that you now have learned enough to even catch a computer making mistakes. Way to go man!.
JW
Hi JW - thanks for your encouraging words ... much appreciated. I've spent more years than I care to mention pursuing this craft, and can readily say that I've never been privy to such a unique perspective into the markets. It boggles my mind when I stop and think of the brain power employed to conceptualize such an approach. And to think that Bill now selflessly shares his brainchild with any trader willing to put in the effort speaks volumes on the gentleman's character.
Concerning my PPF thoughts above, they were most likely precipitated by the dancing dollar signs when considering the possible near-perfect PPF -> Breach trade
Have a nice weekend, guys ...
P.S. I'll trade ya software pkgs, Whisky - heheh.
Concerning my PPF thoughts above, they were most likely precipitated by the dancing dollar signs when considering the possible near-perfect PPF -> Breach trade
Have a nice weekend, guys ...
P.S. I'll trade ya software pkgs, Whisky - heheh.
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
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
- Status