|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
VonHef wrote:
> My understanding of "Elliot Wave" is VERY basic, so It may benefit me to
> read up on this. The way Krausz determines a Trend is very similar to the
> original
> Dow..............
> of a non-trending range.......then I can alter my trading signals. This is
> not that hard see when I study the charts, but it may prove to be a real
> challenge to
> program. I always value others input......what are your thoughts?
My thoughts in general on this subject are still up in the air, and I've
hesitated to respond to this message quickly because I wanted to weigh my
remarks carefully. I think your goal of finding something to que your system
to go into Congestion Mode from Trend Mode is a bold goal, but I can't see how
it could ever be done. If I were to give you other ideas on the subject of
trend-end/congestion-begins signals, however, like the Elliott Wave, they would
most likely lead you away from the direction you're currently headed and show a
great deal of skill in--building indicators, and translating concepts into
indicators. And since I'm not skilled in that area, it might just be my lack
of knowledge that blinds me from where your skills could otherwise go.
So, I don't want to tempt you in another direction. After all, look at Wilder's
ADX. It comes closest to signalling an end to the trend and end to a
non-trend. And who would have thought that such a thing could come from an
indicator. (Unfortunately, for trading commodities, as I do, these signals only
work well at the end of major moves, and there are far too many treacherous
reversals betwixt and between that can kill you.)
You see, I've already given up on any idea of finding what you are trying to
invent. I want to go outside the box altogether and incorporate tools like
Andrew's Fork and Elliott Wave to tell me I am facing a correction, and I want
to use a simple mechanical trigger of trend identification for the short term to
keep me in--or keep me re-entering to get in-- as long as a target of time and
price has not been met yet from one of these other unrelated, non-indicator
based concepts.
Incidentally, I've been looking for true trend indicators to use on two
simultaneous time frames, as have you. And I appreciate you passing onto to me
those you interpreted from Krausz. I've come across another, simpler trend
definition that might fit closer to what I've been looking for as a simple trend
trigger. And I've found it in none other than in the work of Drummond, perhaps
Krausz' most acknowledged mentor. The PL dot Formula looks like this:
PLDot= Avg(H(1),L(1),C(1)) + Avg(H(2),L(2),C(2)) + Avg(H(3),L(3),C(3))
/3
In other words, the average of the H, L, and C of the last 3 bars.
For my formula to translate to Highlight bars instead of the Drummond moving
dots, I would then have to subtract today's result of this formula from the
average of the last 3 days for a result that is either greater than or less.
This is not unlike what I was trying to achieve with my much simpler use of the
Typical Price. Ken Wander of this list gave me some great code for that on two
time frames.
But my conlusion now is that I should not use the same formula for the longer
time frame Trend Ribbon as I do for the daily trend highlight. Why should they
be the same anyway? Why do I necessarily even have to use a weekly data look
back to produce a trend ribbon of the larger degree trend? Glen Wallace's
Recursive Moving Trend might have promise. Something that overlooks the noise
on a intermediate level, but something shorter than the many weeks it takes for
a Wilder's ADX to signal warnings of an impending end-of-trend.
Just some thoughts... Sorry they took so long. Will be watching your posts
with interest.
Mark Scheier
> Best wishes,
> Adam Hefner.
> VonHef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Valhalla <scheier@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Hefner, Adam <VonHef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Support or Resistance Penatration question
>
> > VonHef wrote:
> >
> > > ....I believe the first step in improving a system is know its
> weaknesses, so
> > > my next project is to try to create an expert that will identify all
> three
> > > market conditions and alter the signals accordingly.
> >
> > I read that with great interest. I've been wondering if there was a way
> to do
> > that without Elliott wave for some time. I'll be watching your progress
> with
> > interest. Any idea what direction you're going in first?
> >
> > Best of luck in your trading in the meantime....
> >
> > Mark Scheier
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Adam Hefner.
> > > VonHef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Tommaso Galanti <galantit@xxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:40 PM
> > > Subject: R: Support or Resistance Penatration question
> > >
> > > > Adam,
> > > > I believe that, in principle, Mr Krausz's assumptions are consistent
> with
> > > > working in a swing scenario: swings are 'vertical' moves and trading
> > > ranges
> > > > are just parts of them; you trade according to the global swing rules
> and
> > > > not to a part of it.
> > > > On the other end (practical), Mr Krausz claims in his web site
> > > > (www.fibonaccitrader.com) to have recently added to his sw some
> indicators
> > > > that measure the trendiness of the market, based on Mr. William Blau's
> > > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Greetings
> > > >
> > > > Tommaso Galanti
> > > >
> > > > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > > > Da: VonHef <VonHef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > A: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Data: luned́ 3 maggio 1999 20.59
> > > > Oggetto: Re: Support or Resistance Penatration question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Mark,
> > > > >Thanks for the reply. Actually you are dealing with the exact
> scenario I
> > > am
> > > > >asking
> > > > >about. I have been analyzing the "Gann-Swing" method that has been
> posted
> > > > to
> > > > >the list.......there are many things I like about it, but one thing I
> > > don't
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> >
|