Re: [EquisMetaStock Group] JMA or PLA

[Stevie No Wonder <skeeter47@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is an except from a seminar I presented for Lind-Waldock:

 

 

Tim Tillson’s T3

Tim Tillson’s T3 formula was first published in the Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities in 1998. His work has been under the radar for the past eight years. I have introduced many traders to his work and I’ve found most of these traders immediately adopt these averages as a substitute for whatever averages they have used prior.

 

The actual formula was used in a proprietary C+ program as a test bed for filters, systems and options research. Here is the T3 (TMA) formula as it appeared in Tillson’s article:

 

TMA = 1.7E – .7E(E) and E(E) – EMA(EMA)

T3 = TMA(TMA(TMA))

. (See information at the bottom of this article to request Tillson’s article with more details on the formula, from Lind-Waldock)

 

Originally, the T3 was used as a proxy for price, or instead of an EMA in systems. Tillson’s moving average has only 30 percent as much lag as an EMA of the same length. There is nothing more important than lag when it comes to moving averages. The longer the lag, the less useful the moving average is. Moving averages, by nature, lag the underlying price. The T3 is an average that eliminates much of the lag found in typical moving averages, yet is sensitive to changes in trend. Because Tim’s T3s are very smooth and very sensitive to directional change, they allow us to structure approaches to the markets using these characteristics.

 

Take care,

 

Steve

 

 

--- On Fri, 3/5/10, Code 2 <Code2@xxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Code 2 <Code2@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [EquisMetaStock Group] JMA or PLA
To: "Yahoo" <equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 11:46 AM

With moving averages, you either suffer lag in order to avoid
overshoot, or your average overshoots in order to avoid lag.

I know nothing about the mechanics behind PLA, but I did see a
comparison of PLA and JMA at
http://www.precisiontradingsystems.com/PLA%20v%20Other_averages.htm

Some of their comparisons are not valid, however. They claim that PLA
"stays locked on the trend while JMA reversed." Many averages stay on
trend because of their lag; that's one of the ways they filter out
small, non-trending corrections or "noise." JMA, however, uses signal
processing to filter noise and the user tunes JMA to filter as much or
as little noise as he or she wishes. In PLA's comparison, they appear
to have simply tuned JMA to track price in the manner most flattering
to PLA.



From: Yahoo <dv8256@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 4:21:30 AM
Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] JMA or PLA

I was amazed at the claim of moving average of PLA of precision@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That PLA is supposed to b better than JURIK JMA as overshoot is avoided
Any comments from veterans ?
Thanks
Dhiraj

--



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    equismetastock-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    equismetastock-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___