|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Three answers to your question.
1) Elder's "Triple Screen Trading System" is NOT really a system. He calls
it a "method" or "style". I think he misnamed it. I think it's very
valuable, but it's not a system, method, or style.
In my view, it's a conceptual framework for building a system.
I've been an application software designer/builder for 14 years. And the
one mistake that I see repeated again and again is that people want to CODE.
They want to program and get something "working" before they even have a
clear concept or design of what they really want.
I see a parallel with what I've experienced with technical analysis. I've
spent a whole lot of time refining detailed parameters for indicators
without carefully considering the "conceptual" issues that, if I got them
right, a lot of the detailed parameter refining would go away.
Elder's "concept" (and specific approach) for integrating trend following
techniques and oscillators by means of using indicators on multiple data
periods is the best "conceptual framework" I've come across. Anyone seen
anything better? I keep putting this question (of who's got a framework
that's better) to the list but, frankly, haven't got a significant, specific
response. Am I wrong in assuming that no other member knows of a framework
that's better or is unwilling to provide a specific reference? Just saying
that "all the pros" know this or that other people have used the words
"tide", "wave", and "ripple" isn't enough. I want to know who else has
talked about tides, waves, and ripples and how they actually make these
concepts concrete in a way that can be seen and tested.
2) There's no way to systematically discern the value of Elder's framework
using a Metastock system test because one can't write these tests (or
explorations) against multi-period data merely by changing parms passed to
standard MS functions. This is specifically why I issued my "Dinner in San
Francisco" challenge. It could be that the combination of the work that
Paul Chivers and Rick Mortellra put together will get us closer to being
able to do so. I haven't looked in detail at what they've done and don't
want to until the "criteria for being close enough" has been resolved. (See
one of my other recent posts.)
3) I don't really care if Elder has abandoned his previous work or not in
his own trading. I'm only very happy that I came across the conceptual
framework that he outlined. I'm not really clear how he would refine it.
Add another ripple oscillator indicator or wave trend indicator? Add
another time period? (By the way, I'm using more time periods than his
three and it works better with more.) These are just details that I can
spend "grunt time" on within the confines of the conceptual framework.
Steven Buss
Walnut Creek, CA
sbuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: John E Bush <jb90036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, January 19, 1998 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: A Difference with Elder...
>At 10:40 AM 01/19/98 +0000, you wrote:
>>I've been talking up Elder so much here that I thought I should make it
>>clear that I don't really like one part of his "Triple Screen Trading
>>System" described in "Trading for a Living".
>>
>>
>This book is about 5 years old now; I wonder if Elder has updated, refined
>or maybe even abandoned this system.
>
> john ( MS 5.11 & DOS, TechniFilter Plus 7.1.5 )
>
|