|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brad,
Thanks for both your honesty and sincerity! I agree with alot of your
assessment. Metastock is a limiting lanquage and why a lot of the
work of someone like Roy Larsen is so important. For me an adaptive
moving average is about all that I need. I can work around almost
anything else with just that one simple indicator.
My problem with the indicators you had offered was the price,
especially when you consider that I already had one. That being said
though, I would be happy to see an adaptive indicator offered on the
market for a reasonable cost.
Preston
--- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bradulrich33"
<bradulrich@xxxx> wrote:
> ramble...don't worry about it, we may just figure it all out
> here...what's a few extra K in my inbox anyway, bits are cheap.....
>
> Yeah, I am personally not a trader at all. I am just a developer.
I
> am trying to wrap my head around it all and start from the best
point.
> To me, this starts with indicators. In fact, I think the questions
of
> math surrounding position sizing and everything past indicators has
> been "solved" (or at least settled into a few distinct camps)...So
my
> study turn to indicators. The classic ones just make no sense to
me.
> The things have to be "smarter" than that. The answer has to be in
> some sort of "adaptive" sense. But adaptive how?
>
> The degrees to which an indicator as simple as an average or
smoother
> can be "adaptive" or dynamic, is quite enormous. It starts with the
> period over which the average is calculated (i.e.-bars) and the
> "shape" of the filter. (Box for SMA, Triangle for WMA, and up to
> advanced designs like Laguerre, etc.).
>
> Then to be truely adaptive, the period and the shape should change
> depending on some input (shorter periods in noisy environments, and
> shorter periods when shorter cyles exist are the two most common).
> The tools used to measure these cycles and volatility can then be
> adaptive themselves, and so on...
>
> We have some examples we will be posting very soon where we use a
> signal-to-noise ratio (which is kind of a measure of volatility) as
a
> variable input to some of Ehlers functions. We then use these as
> inputs to other Ehlers' functions, as well as some ASI functions,
and
> the result is some indicators that show some adavantages over
Ehlers'
> stuff directly from his books.
>
> The end result is Ehlers' indicators with one more input made
adaptive.
>
> The end result as a whole is a system that always looks at an input
> and asks, "what effects this?" and tries to make a logical and
> mathematically sound conclusion. However, we know that regardless
of
> all of this theory, you throw it out the window if it doesn't look
> good...In general, I think this is the way better indicators are
made.
> In the end, the more sound they are, the more you can build upon
> them because you can't extend logic on top of bad-logic...that
doesn't
> work.
>
> I think people that use metastock are somewhat limited NOT by their
> understanding of the math, but by a limiting language that
encourages
> the use of static tools...which is why we built these products;
> because we could not accomplish what we desired with Metastock code
> alone (and when we could it was slow and hard to maintain). Instead
> of do it all hard coded in dlls, we decided to expose some lower
level
> tools that would leave some flexibility to do new things...
>
> p.s. - You guys appear to be right about Dr. (as I like to call him)
> Ehlers'. We will see about changing our references...How does John
> Ehlers Esquire sound? Also, the man is getting up there in age and
he
> is still working...several jobs....some people just like to work...
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|