Watch SPX , S&P 500 at 12:25est

[damir00]

apologies for the misunderstanding. so the window is only 20 minutes forward from the time you post, it doesn't also extend backwards? that would make a difference.

have you tested this against picking a random time? like...what if we started looking for a divergence...right now? what are the odds we'd see one within 20 minutes?

(i don't know, i'm asking)

Quote from Walther:

No.
I do not know where that 50 bar window came from, window should be no more than 20 min. But it is up to you how big you want it.
Time posted today is 12:25 and 14:50 est. I look for divergences to start forming at these times. Like today it took almost 20 min but it worked . I used 12:20 deliberately so nobody will come and say :there is always action at 11:35.
Walter

 

[gms]

This is the same essence as seeing identifyable formations in tea leaves. James Randi would have a field day with this: If something has to be interpreted accurately after the fact, it doesn't hold much predictive value, sorry.

Quote from Walther:

07-30-03 07:31 AM

I know that 12:25est is usually lousy time to trade but signal came out really strong so I decided to post it. Try to match your method signal with this time to see if they corelate in some way.

later that day...

07-30-03 01:08 PM

Just to make things clear 12:25 est was a sell signal at 990 with previous high stop at 992

Clear as hindsight. Oh! it is hindsight.

Quote from macal425:

Using Walthers method it is easy to predict that, yes, someone will win next years British Open. It will be during the month of July. As for an exact prediction of 'who' is going to win, that's up to individual preference. No matter what though, I will be able to tell you by the end of July next year who the winner was. It will be so obvious that anyone could have picked it. I have an 80% track record predicting the British Open winner. When I introduce a filter that prohibits women and children under the age of 10 it is damn close to 100%.

That's not accurate. It would be more like, "At next year's British Open, at [predicted date & time], a horse will take some sort of action." Then, after the race, the next post reads, "Just to make it clear, Joe Flapjack finished the 16th hole about 5 minutes after the predicted time."

I thought the British Open was a horse race. Golf is Scottish.

 

[vega]

The British Open in a golf tournament, not a horse race.


Vega

 

[Walther]

Quote from damir00:

apologies for the misunderstanding. so the window is only 20 minutes forward from the time you post, it doesn't also extend backwards? that would make a difference.

have you tested this against picking a random time? like...what if we started looking for a divergence...right now? what are the odds we'd see one within 20 minutes?

(i don't know, i'm asking)

No apology needed,
I use 10-20 min window forward, but divergence can be forming from previous spot . look at today 2min chart of SPX(S&P500) around 12:20 est. You will see that divergence was forming right then and completed 15 min later. It basically depends on you how long do you want to spend. In lunch time it might take longer, if I have a Trading Time 10:00 I will give it 10 min max. By that time I am using recent day data so I am able to pinpoint it better .
Never tested it I was told that it cannot be done cheaply and there was no reason to believe that random time can ever be profitable.
Walter

 

[Walther]

Quote from gms:

: If something has to be interpreted accurately after the fact, it doesn't hold much predictive value, sorry.

This is the most confused statement ever. How do you interpret anything accurately BEFORE it happens ? Accurate interpretation can be done only AFTER the fact.

 

[Nordic]

Quote from vega:

The British Open in a golf tournament, not a horse race.


Vega

The fairways resemble a horse track.

 

[gms]

Quote from Walther:

Quote from gms:

: If something has to be interpreted accurately after the fact, it doesn't hold much predictive value, sorry.

This is the most confused statement ever. How do you interpret anything accurately BEFORE it happens ? Accurate interpretation can be done only AFTER the fact.

I really doubt that's 'the most confused statement ever', but I don't want you to be confused about this, so I'll explain.

First, this isn't about just 'interpreting anything', this is much more specific than that. This is about clearly stating the interpretation of an calculated expectation (or prediction ) before the event, because one interprets predictions prior to their occurrence, instead of explaining how exactly the prediction applied after the fact. It lends more credence to the predictive ability. One interprets afterwards when one is engaged in, say, interpreting a novel in Spanish after it's been written, for example. But you are engaging in predictive timing of buy/sell signals. By their nature, predictive timing of such signals are too late if they are to be interpreted *after* the event. They must be interpreted prior to the event for anyone to utilize the predictive nature of the signal. Now, let's see if that's what you did.

In your first post giving the predictive time (and you gave it to the minute, so we know you have the ability to nail that down), you say things such as, "Try to match your method signal with this time to see if they correlate ", which is another of saying, "I'm not going to say what this means exactly, but you guys see if any spaghetti sticks to the walls with this". The language is hesitant, it speaks of uncertainty about the outcome with it's "try to" and "see if". You further instruct folks to see if there's a correlation "in some way", which really leaves the interpretation wide open.

This is far different than the explanation of your signal you gave after the fact when you said, "Just to make things clear 12:25 est was a sell signal at 990". You didn't declare that it could have been several things, now there are no "ifs", and this was now not still open "in some way". Quite the contrary. You stated it "was", and that it was a "sell signal", and not just a sell signal out of many possible sell signals, but a sell signal "at 990". That is clear! This is precise. That's very exact. Much different than your first post's explanation. But it's after the event.

Now, if you can post that kind of a clear, understandable expression of what your signal means - before the fact - before the signal time- not after it - then you've got something, bud.

 

[damir00]

Quote from Walther:
Never tested it I was told that it cannot be done cheaply and there was no reason to believe that random time can ever be profitable.
Walter

you were told wrong, tons of intraday historical data available, all it takes is minimal programming skills. you could probably even do it in excel. i routinely test my strategies against several years worth of 1 minute bars on $spx, $ndx and $indu.

re: randomness, it is a vastly underrated concept. -g-

 

[Walther]

Quote from gms:


By their nature, predictive timing of such signals are too late if they are to be interpreted *after* the event. They must be interpreted prior to the event for anyone to utilize the predictive nature of the signal.

Here you go again. Nobody can give you buy or sell signals at certain time, ahead of time, with more then coin toss accuracy. You know that but keep asking me to do it . How fair is that ?

I think that you think about it too much and making it too complicated. Let me try to explain it one more time.

12:25 was posted one day ahead. Nobody in the world knows what will happen at that time.
Use CCI or MACD divergence to determine direction of a trade at that time. 12:25 happened to have a clear divergence so it was a sell. Look at the 2 min chart of SPX .
If you see no divergence, stay flat , just like it hapenned on other posted time. No divergence, no trade. Safe and reliable. That simple.

It is not for a beginner, that is for sure, it requires some trading experience.

Walter

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Walther:

I think that you think about it too much and making it too complicated. Let me try to explain it one more time.

You continue to "explain" it as though the people to whom you're explaining it are stupid. The problem is that what you're trying to explain is nonsense.