Something very simplistic
- Thread starter Quah
- Start date
- Status
Not much to add as AAA has summed it up very well.
Quah, I PM'ed you early on with my thoughts, ignore the detractors who add nothing and the others who will say "but what did you do for me today." You have been generous to a fault and many here, who understand the spirit in which you started the thread, wish you good fortune. If you, or anyone who works with this method cares to post I would like to read it, as this thread has been fascinating.
I wouldn't say that I "work" with it, but I do track it along with my usual method. So far, it doesn't do substantially better than what I'm doing now unless I trade multiple contracts, which I'm not prepared to do after having tracked it for only a couple of weeks.
There are, however, as I've suggested, a number of variations that could be played, such as using a different stop, or a different time series, or a different target, etc. For one person to track all these variations would take a great deal of time. But given the number of people who have shown interest in this thread, it should not be necessary for one person to carry such a load.
--Db
Traderkay -
I've been tracking SVS since Quah's month-long experiment ended on 10/11.
Since then, SVS is only up around $400.00 total (and today hasn't been good, either, so it could be around breakeven by the end of the trading day). SVS had a nice, profitable week from 10/14-10/18 in both ES and NQ, then last week gave back almost everything. Bad week in ES, particularly.
I'm going to continue to track it daily for a few more weeks - but I really think it needs to be backtested to get at least an approximation of how well it holds up over time. One bad week, or a breakeven month, really means little in the big picture.
Just as a quick observation, I took a peek (a very quick one) at daily charts from the 9/11-10/11 period Quah traded it live, and it seemed SVS did much better during trending phases - otherwise, it got chopped up. There would hopefully be ways to address this and fix it...maybe fading the system during choppy periods (maybe an ADX filter or something...)?
Like you, I'm still interested in this method - at the very least, the core ideas of trading by appointment and using simple indicators and profit/loss targets. At the same time, I'm not convinced any of those ideas really work!
I've been tracking SVS since Quah's month-long experiment ended on 10/11.
Since then, SVS is only up around $400.00 total (and today hasn't been good, either, so it could be around breakeven by the end of the trading day). SVS had a nice, profitable week from 10/14-10/18 in both ES and NQ, then last week gave back almost everything. Bad week in ES, particularly.
I'm going to continue to track it daily for a few more weeks - but I really think it needs to be backtested to get at least an approximation of how well it holds up over time. One bad week, or a breakeven month, really means little in the big picture.
Just as a quick observation, I took a peek (a very quick one) at daily charts from the 9/11-10/11 period Quah traded it live, and it seemed SVS did much better during trending phases - otherwise, it got chopped up. There would hopefully be ways to address this and fix it...maybe fading the system during choppy periods (maybe an ADX filter or something...)?
Like you, I'm still interested in this method - at the very least, the core ideas of trading by appointment and using simple indicators and profit/loss targets. At the same time, I'm not convinced any of those ideas really work!
because people are rationally supposed to trade PRICE not TIME huh 
The fact to take fibo numbers perhaps insure somehow independance of sampling whereas fixed time interval would be less good if market follows golden ratio law and that is the case (see for example the link of Orlin Grab article about the haussdorf dimension of 1/PHI - also my model shows it numerically whereas theorically I didn't inject any golden ratio as input, but as output it appears. I have still to investigate why but I have some ideas). But it doesn't alone permit the system to be winner so the edge must also come from the other setup criteria. I didn't read the whole threads in detail so it is just my two cents.
The fact to take fibo numbers perhaps insure somehow independance of sampling whereas fixed time interval would be less good if market follows golden ratio law and that is the case (see for example the link of Orlin Grab article about the haussdorf dimension of 1/PHI - also my model shows it numerically whereas theorically I didn't inject any golden ratio as input, but as output it appears. I have still to investigate why but I have some ideas). But it doesn't alone permit the system to be winner so the edge must also come from the other setup criteria. I didn't read the whole threads in detail so it is just my two cents.
- Status