That's weird. Any tech guys here know why that happens? It was on here yesterday and then just disappeared. Here is the attachment.
The ACD Method
- Thread starter sbrowne126
- Start date
That's weird. Any tech guys here know why that happens? It was on here yesterday and then just disappeared. Here is the attachment.
Logical Trader was one of the first trading books I read. At the time I didn't understand a thing.
I went through the process that I assume most went through - made a little, lost a little, tried to come up with every possible indicator combination, tried futures/forex/stocks/options/correlated pairs mean reversion/prop, spent way to hours lurking on ET (note post count), etc.
I just re-read the book & this thread. Huge help clearing up some concepts. Thanks to all that contributed.
I like the idea of trading spreads (not mean reversion). I plan on looking into this as well as using ACD to time option spreads.
May want to take a look at these:
freestockcharts has a price relative indicator that allows you to compare any two symbols and shows them as a line chart. I use it as a quick way to scan for relative strength. That and FINVIZ are a great way to get a look at the market when I'm away from my screens.
Catalystcorner is another site I check, lots of info using their correlation tool. Both sites are free.
Good stuff all around.
I went through the process that I assume most went through - made a little, lost a little, tried to come up with every possible indicator combination, tried futures/forex/stocks/options/correlated pairs mean reversion/prop, spent way to hours lurking on ET (note post count), etc.
I just re-read the book & this thread. Huge help clearing up some concepts. Thanks to all that contributed.
I like the idea of trading spreads (not mean reversion). I plan on looking into this as well as using ACD to time option spreads.
May want to take a look at these:
freestockcharts has a price relative indicator that allows you to compare any two symbols and shows them as a line chart. I use it as a quick way to scan for relative strength. That and FINVIZ are a great way to get a look at the market when I'm away from my screens.
Catalystcorner is another site I check, lots of info using their correlation tool. Both sites are free.
Good stuff all around.
Not to be a conspiracy nut or anything, but that charts show that we are clearly FUBAR. It is gonna get bad. Im trying to get my change up and get the hell out.
I remember being exposed to ACD as a newbie trader too. It was too much for me, plus I was still looking for a signal generator. Now, it is the cherry on the cheesecake
you may want to look at the dow/gold ratio as it has been tracked for a mighty long time. Just some food for thought.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/307727-dow-gold-ratio-rallies-to-downtrending-resistance-line
I'm about half-way through The Logical Trader now and I have to say that it's a very impressive achievement and I agree that Fisher has met the challenge of his tagline of putting "a method to the madness". I would have liked more data to support some of the elements of the method, but I'm sure most of that remains proprietary.
BUT, it's pretty clear that in the examples Fisher uses, he is assuming that the trade was entered at or quite close to the A or C levels the method identifies (when he does talk about trade example profits or amounts at-risk, he uses those levels as the trade starting point), yet it's been stated multiple times on this thread that the A and C levels are "just prices" and not meant to be entry triggers when hit and confirmed. If you weren't entering at the A or C levels, or quite close to them, the effectiveness of the method to generate profits could be quite compromised, (since you could never guarantee that you'd get lower entry prices after confirmed A up, for example, so how much more might you be willing to pay up and how would that impact your profitability?), so I'm not sure why the guys on this thread who are more experienced in the use of ACD are so adamant that the A and C levels aren't actual entry points.
BUT, it's pretty clear that in the examples Fisher uses, he is assuming that the trade was entered at or quite close to the A or C levels the method identifies (when he does talk about trade example profits or amounts at-risk, he uses those levels as the trade starting point), yet it's been stated multiple times on this thread that the A and C levels are "just prices" and not meant to be entry triggers when hit and confirmed. If you weren't entering at the A or C levels, or quite close to them, the effectiveness of the method to generate profits could be quite compromised, (since you could never guarantee that you'd get lower entry prices after confirmed A up, for example, so how much more might you be willing to pay up and how would that impact your profitability?), so I'm not sure why the guys on this thread who are more experienced in the use of ACD are so adamant that the A and C levels aren't actual entry points.
A couple of things. One, Fisher himself states that the A levels are a bias indicator. Also, because of the time needed to confirm, you are never, or usually won't get filled at the A level.
As Fisher stated numerous times in the book, everyone trades differently. Some guys like to chase momentum, others like to bid for it. Everyone is different.
My whole thesis about the A level not being an absolute price point is, how do you know what my A levels are? Why should I believe "my" A levels are better then yours or his for that matter?
I like to allow for error. Since I don't believe I hold the holy grail, I am forced to except that my A levels are probably flawed on some level and therefore need to allow for that in my trading.
I also take price action into account. For example, if the ES is confirming an A up but the NASDAQ and Russell are not, then that is a problem for me. Or if Oil is not confirming. Or if the leading stocks are not confirming. I take everything into account. But that is just how I trade.
I agree with your point that Fisher does treat the A and C levels as entry points in the book, but it'd be hard to add all the discretionary grey areas in there without being confusing.
I think baggerlord's thinking on price ranges where normal volatility = noise makes good sense in this context. When price goes beyond certain thresholds, the character of the instrument changes. But that's often not enough to put together a black and white entry and exit methodology.
For instance, when an A level is confirmed, I look at what time of the day it was confirmed and how price behaved to get there. Was the opening range tight or was it wide with a straight, early run right to the A level? In the latter case, I would not enter on a confirmation, if at all, because the probability of a pull back is a lot higher. I'd watch how steep the first pull back is and how long price stays there, then make a decision.
This is just my own way of thinking though, and Fisher adds some layers -- like with the pivots, number line, and first-hour pivot range -- that give usable reference points and filters. I don't use those as much because I've been trading for a while and am used to trusting my own discretion in some areas, but I think they make sense according to the other theories of market behavior that I agree with (like auction market theory).
Stops, though, I think are not discussed enough and are pretty hard to get right, particularly during the overnight session in certain futures instruments.
I don't personally like the idea of using A/C values as entry triggers either but rather as a way to confirm or deny my ideas. Basic tech analysis for entries. I don't use a specific instrument to confirm either, I tend to watch internals and combine it all :
A up through pivot range and bullish internals and higher highs and higher lows on an instrument that has been outperforming it's market/index = step on the gas when it pulls back to an entry.
Exact A/C entries aren't too important to me when I'm doing debit spreads.
Just my thoughts, feel free to ignore them
A up through pivot range and bullish internals and higher highs and higher lows on an instrument that has been outperforming it's market/index = step on the gas when it pulls back to an entry.
Exact A/C entries aren't too important to me when I'm doing debit spreads.
Just my thoughts, feel free to ignore them