If you do not monitor the five minute ES and the two minute YM, then by definition, you haven't compared the two futures contracts properly with respect to the instructions provided within these many pages.
- Spydertrader.
Spydertrader's Jack Hershey Futures Trading Journal
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
- Status
If you do not monitor the five minute ES and the two minute YM, then by definition, you haven't compared the two futures contracts properly with respect to the instructions provided within these many pages.
- Spydertrader.
I don't want to test the method.
I want to test if the YM leads the ES at points of sentiment change because of the 'smart money' involved.
Sentiment change of the market itself is independent of the method used to observe the market.
It depends on the driving forces of the market.
If the YM is more influenced by 'smarter money' and is therefore earlier in the new changed sentiment, it should be noticable in many bar resolutions and especially in equal resolutions.
For me it makes no sense to compare two futures in different time resolutions.
Edit:
Do you think my charts are useless for this test?
I can understand where babs is coming from.
For me I have 'taken it on faith' for now. It is something I am interested in proving. However I am not sure you can even do this empirically with different fractals. A 2 minute fractal is useful for timing when trading a 5 minute fractal anyway so I am happy with it on my workspace.
One thing I can say after a month or so of using YM is that sometimes YM volume appears to lead ES volume but this could easily be just because its finer resolution so tends to exaggerate surges.
Another advantage is that the tapes will be somewhat different giving another perspective.
I remember watching Tikki years ago. (it is a breadth indicator that shows number of DJIA stocks on upticks vs. downticks). You could often see buy & sell programs hitting. Maybe the DJIA is 'easier' in this regard being a smaller basket to buy the cash. (as a side observation I wonder if Tiki would be a reasonable proxy for str/squ)
Anyway I am certainly interested in your research babs but I have a hunch that Spyder might suggest that this is not an appropriate thread for it
Cheers.
For me I have 'taken it on faith' for now. It is something I am interested in proving. However I am not sure you can even do this empirically with different fractals. A 2 minute fractal is useful for timing when trading a 5 minute fractal anyway so I am happy with it on my workspace.
One thing I can say after a month or so of using YM is that sometimes YM volume appears to lead ES volume but this could easily be just because its finer resolution so tends to exaggerate surges.
Another advantage is that the tapes will be somewhat different giving another perspective.
I remember watching Tikki years ago. (it is a breadth indicator that shows number of DJIA stocks on upticks vs. downticks). You could often see buy & sell programs hitting. Maybe the DJIA is 'easier' in this regard being a smaller basket to buy the cash. (as a side observation I wonder if Tiki would be a reasonable proxy for str/squ)
Anyway I am certainly interested in your research babs but I have a hunch that Spyder might suggest that this is not an appropriate thread for it
Cheers.
There are many assumptions about one instrument leading the other:
OEX leads SPX (Bryce Gilmore, developer of WaveTrader software)
NQ leads ES (Rickey Cheung, developer of RC Advance, RC Success, RC Swing trading systems)
DAX leads ES (Teresa Lo, if i remember it right)
YM leads ES (Jack Hershey
OIL leads DOW (German news)
VIX leads ES, ES leads DAX, OIL leads NQ, Gold, $, Yen, ⬠....
b2k,
JH says YM leads ES at pointes du change which is different from what you say above and this difference is quite critical and non-trivial.
If you look closely at your posted charts (the longer time interval ones particularly), what you will notice immediately is that:
1. The charts are not the same with respect to the relative position of the peaks and troughs and this will not be altered if the data were normalized
2. The channels, rigorously drawn, connecting the peaks and troughs will therefore not be the same.
3. The "signals" generated by the channels (and all of the other stuff associated with the Hershey methodology) will therefore quite possibly not be contemporaneous.
It would be the position of those who believe that JH is correct, that point 3 should be read without "quite possibly". Until such time as you show that points 1 and 2 are inconsequential and that because of that, the Hershey method is tripe, you should press on and test what Spyder (who is the thread oracle) has said. The selection of the different time fractals is a market timing consideration.
As a long time, wet bench, mechanistic spectroscopist let me say that I love looking at squiggly lines and that before subscribing to your theory and by doing so dumping the one which I currently believe in (the JH theory [JHT], if you will) you must destroy JHT and dismember its corpse. So far I don't think you've done it, but if you can, please do.
lj
OEX leads SPX (Bryce Gilmore, developer of WaveTrader software)
NQ leads ES (Rickey Cheung, developer of RC Advance, RC Success, RC Swing trading systems)
DAX leads ES (Teresa Lo, if i remember it right)
YM leads ES (Jack Hershey
OIL leads DOW (German news)
VIX leads ES, ES leads DAX, OIL leads NQ, Gold, $, Yen, ⬠....
b2k,
JH says YM leads ES at pointes du change which is different from what you say above and this difference is quite critical and non-trivial.
If you look closely at your posted charts (the longer time interval ones particularly), what you will notice immediately is that:
1. The charts are not the same with respect to the relative position of the peaks and troughs and this will not be altered if the data were normalized
2. The channels, rigorously drawn, connecting the peaks and troughs will therefore not be the same.
3. The "signals" generated by the channels (and all of the other stuff associated with the Hershey methodology) will therefore quite possibly not be contemporaneous.
It would be the position of those who believe that JH is correct, that point 3 should be read without "quite possibly". Until such time as you show that points 1 and 2 are inconsequential and that because of that, the Hershey method is tripe, you should press on and test what Spyder (who is the thread oracle) has said. The selection of the different time fractals is a market timing consideration.
As a long time, wet bench, mechanistic spectroscopist let me say that I love looking at squiggly lines and that before subscribing to your theory and by doing so dumping the one which I currently believe in (the JH theory [JHT], if you will) you must destroy JHT and dismember its corpse. So far I don't think you've done it, but if you can, please do.
lj
I have not been around today.
Stopped in and and had seen this post on YM and ES.
Looked at this post, and in a second this was MY visual, again. . . MY visual.
Enjoy your Holiday everyone.
Stopped in and and had seen this post on YM and ES.
Looked at this post, and in a second this was MY visual, again. . . MY visual.
Enjoy your Holiday everyone.
Just wanted to send a huge thanks out to JH, Spydertrader, and really everyone here. Thanks so much for sharing. I'm personally involved in several projects that are taking quite a bit of time, so I haven't spent as much time learning this method as I would like to. Obviously, I hope that will change going forward. There are probably many other lurkers like me, who are also really thankful for everyone's contributions!
Happy holidays!
Happy holidays!
Chart for November 21 2007
Here's how I saw the day. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!
RT
RT
- Status