The ACD Method

SteveM said:
I've found value in a variety of different scoring methods. I do believe today's algo-driven markets are prone to more two sided trading and therefore perhaps the traditional 3 and 4 scores on the daily charts during the open outcry days of the 1980s were more meaningful than they are today. In other words, a C up in the old days was more meaningful than it is today....sometimes when I assign a "2" to a hard trend up from the open one day and then assign a "4" the next day to weak C down I wonder if I am overvaluing the C trade.
More...
I have reduced scoring to just 4 categories, and I have a weighting for how decisive the moves are. FX trades 24/5 and futures pretty close to that, with obvious exceptions, so a 30 minute OR and the suggested confirmation in the book is ridiculous. I had 3 hours for a confirmation, I've since reduced it to 2 hours with 90 minutes for Friday, and I'm not rigid about either.

It was pretty useless scoring FX as an A with a 20 or 30 minute poke above the level and the rest of the day spent outside the OR but within the A. In FX at least that is just chop.

My system was heavily influenced by my reading of Mind Over Markets. I have incorporated those principles in my scoring.

I have the '99 edition, this is the updated one.

 
Last edited:
Fisher on CNBC now... opening remarks about stocks in general - think CBs will have a problem on their hands when stocks inevitably go through multi-year flat period..."where will pension funds go for yield?"

"Crude, low 40s you are a buyer if specs aren't overly long, low 50s you are a seller, assuming specs are long. Looks range bound unless something crazy happens in North Korea...if I were investing in energy, I'd be looking at Nat Gas plays...if we eventually have a real winter, we are going to breakout of this 2.75-3.25 multiyear range and surprise people and get up into the 4s...some of these names like Chesapeake are priced like they are essentially call options."

"I think people overthink things....when things go up and no one knows why, they go much higher...when things go down and know one knows why, they go lower...so stocks are probably going higher because they keep going higher in the backdrop of all this bad news....if markets didn't work this way, everyone who got 95% grades in highschool would be multi-millionaires."

"Most people investing in midstream space, are scared that if crude goes down to $35, these people are all going bankrupt - that is not necessarily true....a lot of the reason these midstreams are so cheap right now is because they crashed in last couple years and people are scared to go there"

"We still try to time Nat Gas, which is been very hard over last 12 months - for everyday investor though, they should be investing in the companies in the space rather than futures - there is still opportunity there though for traders - when next rally happens, I hope no one gets on, and think it wont last like every other nat gas rally, and therefore carries the rally much further since no one believes it will last."

Fisher on healthcare: "only market left without pricing transparency. Once someone comes in and makes pricing readily viewable by consumers, I think a lot of these healthcare companies are in big trouble. Healthcare in the US is like like the pre open-outcry days of trading. The minute someone like Amazon steps in here, the whole industry is in trouble."
 
Last edited:
The deeper I go in to ACD the more I am impressed by the deceptive simplicity of it. After tons of my own work and playing with all sorts of different filters I am finding that the 3 day rolling pivot is probably superior to all of them.

Justrading I am with you on mind over markets. That is the other philosophy that has fundamentally shaped what I am doing. Now incorporating it in to my scoring...that has got me thinking.
 
ACD is a poor mans probabilities.
The system is quite hard to comprehend for a T/A, fundamental analysis, and wishful investopedia reader. The edge isn't there, and it's painful for any beginner or someone like myself. Fisher is a product of the capital available to him, not investing expertise. I hate to say to everyone whose spent time on the forum, but his edge is not an edge. The forum is playing on probablities, not true edges.
You are gamblers.

I'm sure the backlash will be heavy.
But, it's all semantics.

Before you comment..... have you ever worked on a prop desk/hedge product desk? Oh, no? Okay, I'll love to hear what you read on investopedia.
 
DeltaRisk said:
ACD is a poor mans probabilities.
The system is quite hard to comprehend for a T/A, fundamental analysis, and wishful investopedia reader. The edge isn't there, and it's painful for any beginner or someone like myself. Fisher is a product of the capital available to him, not investing expertise. I hate to say to everyone whose spent time on the forum, but his edge is not an edge. The forum is playing on probablities, not true edges.
You are gamblers.

I'm sure the backlash will be heavy.
But, it's all semantics.

Before you comment..... have you ever worked on a prop desk/hedge product desk? Oh, no? Okay, I'll love to hear what you read on investopedia.
More...

Who are you responding to? Our thread has almost no resemblance to what Fisher does or at least I'll speak for myself. What I do have nothing to do with Fisher. And my background if your interested, yes, I worked for a prop desk, ran a regional office for a prop firm, and was a former CBOT floor member. I have a Masters Degree in Economics and all my models are quant based and statistically proven. Sorry to respond as I'm sure that post was not directed at me, I'm probably just the first to respond.
 
Maverick74 said:
Who are you responding to? Our thread has almost no resemblance to what Fisher does or at least I'll speak for myself. What I do have nothing to do with Fisher. And my background if your interested, yes, I worked for a prop desk, ran a regional office for a prop firm, and was a former CBOT floor member. I have a Masters Degree in Economics and all my models are quant based and statistically proven. Sorry to respond as I'm sure that post was not directed at me, I'm probably just the first to respond.
More...

You are one of only five on this entire website that deserve attention.
No offense, but your masters means jack to the market. You know that.
I'm sure you've dealt with target school professionals, and what do they know?

Mav, you're smart. I know that.
I know where you've worked, and I wish they were still around.
But, 5k guys just don't have a chance anymore.
 
Maverick74 said:
Who are you responding to? Our thread has almost no resemblance to what Fisher does or at least I'll speak for myself. What I do have nothing to do with Fisher. And my background if your interested, yes, I worked for a prop desk, ran a regional office for a prop firm, and was a former CBOT floor member. I have a Masters Degree in Economics and all my models are quant based and statistically proven. Sorry to respond as I'm sure that post was not directed at me, I'm probably just the first to respond.
More...

Also, excuse me. I've been reading this thread all night since the very first post on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top