I have often been asked why I flagellate myself systematically demolishing SCT, when almost everybody else here believes that SCT is utter foolishness and need no convincing. I keep at it because I invariably discover interesting market phenomena in the process of proving Jack wrong. Of course I never share those.
I have contended for years that SCT adherents are undisturbed by finding that this or that little facet of SCT is flawed. They magically believe that in the ensemble it works even if one part of it is patent nonsense.
Consider the PV relation. When Jack first posted it here years ago I thought hard about it and concluded that it was a purely theoretical construct not supported by observation. The fact that they Crayola to "prove" it should have prompted me to debunk it in code at that time, but I let it pass, having better things to do.
Now I find myself in the happy situation that my decidedly non-SCT system of trading a collection of edgelets is relatively stable. All I have to do is trade it. So I have a little time on my hands that previously went to system detection and development.
So I coded the PV relation in a five minute chart on a bar-to-bar basis. No Crayolaing. A strict, literal interpretation. It is net negative for as far back as I had the interest to test it.
In the attachment for today's NQ so far, the bottom pane is the PV Relation. Results are even worse on a narrow range day. It doesn't work in one-minute or ten-minute, either. I'll post other examples from time to time in support. I conclude that if a literal interpretation doesn't work, Crayolaing is an exercise in imagining what ain't there.
I have contended for years that SCT adherents are undisturbed by finding that this or that little facet of SCT is flawed. They magically believe that in the ensemble it works even if one part of it is patent nonsense.
Consider the PV relation. When Jack first posted it here years ago I thought hard about it and concluded that it was a purely theoretical construct not supported by observation. The fact that they Crayola to "prove" it should have prompted me to debunk it in code at that time, but I let it pass, having better things to do.
Now I find myself in the happy situation that my decidedly non-SCT system of trading a collection of edgelets is relatively stable. All I have to do is trade it. So I have a little time on my hands that previously went to system detection and development.
So I coded the PV relation in a five minute chart on a bar-to-bar basis. No Crayolaing. A strict, literal interpretation. It is net negative for as far back as I had the interest to test it.
In the attachment for today's NQ so far, the bottom pane is the PV Relation. Results are even worse on a narrow range day. It doesn't work in one-minute or ten-minute, either. I'll post other examples from time to time in support. I conclude that if a literal interpretation doesn't work, Crayolaing is an exercise in imagining what ain't there.
