On Jan 3, 2008, at 5:37 PM, scourt2000 wrote:
>
> I offer up this kind of information to help give someone what they
> want. But, in this instance, I'd like mention what's far better than
> any of this CCI/RSI/MACD/Stochastic/blah-blah "stuff", adaptive or
> otherwise.
>
> This is what works since the dawn of trading (I'm speaking mainly to
> you e-mini futures traders out there who are getting too caught up in
> indicators and trying to massage them to infinity in an effort to
> reduce your loss percentage):
>
> Go to a price chart, NOT an indicator. Find support and resistance.
> Buy the stronger supports. Sell the stronger resistances. Scalp the
> weaker ones. Trade heavier with the trend. Manage the trades.
>
> Your research is your confirmation. The better your research, the
> better your real-time performance will be. If you need "momentum
> confirmation" to get into a trade, then please never tell me that
> you're getting in 1-2 bars "ahead of the world" because I'm 1-2 bars
> ahead of YOUR world and what I'm doing is leading price, not
> following it from an indicator derived from price.
>
> There's no follow-up to this on my part. I'm not engaging anyone in
> an argument over this. I have seen literally 100's fall by the
> wayside in the daytrading e-mini world, playing around with
> indicators. The ones I consistently see still in the game and
> trading well are the ones who pay attention primarily to support and
> resistance from a price chart, not from some indicator.
>
> There are exceptions to any general rule. But your likelihood of
> winding up in the blown-out account list is much higher by playing
> with indicators instead of simple, common support and resistance
> through multiple timeframes.
>
> --- In
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "scourt2000" <stevehite@xxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> Sounds like you're interested in John Ehlers' work on adaptive
>> indicators that he explained in Chapter 22 of his book, "Rocket
>> Science for Traders". He took some common momentum indicators
>> (including the CCI) and coded them up to be adaptive in
> Tradestation
>> Easy Language.
>>
>> Also, you can find a couple of articles about this at
>
tuckerreport.com>>
>>
>> --- In
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bilbo0211" <bilbod@> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Howard B" <howardbandy@> wrote:
>>>> For this statement:
>>>> somevar = CCI(parm);
>>>> "somevar" will be an array with one element for every bar of the
>>> data array,
>>>> the value of that element the result of applying the CCI
> function
>> to the
>>>> "average" of that bar ((H+L+C)/3), for the lookback length
>> of "parm".
>>>>
>>>> What problem are you trying to solve?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I want parm to be an array.
>>>
>>> What I am doing is trying to 'tune' the CCI to the dominant cycle
> in
>>> the market.
>>>
>>> Let me give you a simplistic example using moving averages.
>>>
>>> If you are trading a trending market (longer period dominant
> cycle),
>>> you want a longer period moving average to filter out the small
>> (high
>>> frequency) corrections that occur.
>>>
>>> In a trading range market (shorter period dominant cycle), you
> want
>> a
>>> shorter period moving average that can react more quickly to the
>>> shorter term changes in direction.
>>>
>>> I started by using the fft to estimate the dominant cycle but I
> had
>> a
>>> lot of trouble coding something useful so I switched to Ehler's
>>> estimate (using Laguerre filter, it's in the afl library).
>>>
>>> As crude as that estimate is, it improves the performance of the
>>> indicators I tried it on. If I could get a more accurate measure
> of
>>> the dominant cycle, I am confident it would improve performance
>> even more.
>>>
>>> That's why I want the period of the CCI to vary.
>>>
>>> I also don't see any point to include the C of a bar for intraday
>>> charts. I use CCIa((H+L)/2,period).
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>