[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RT] S&P Trendlines



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links


Bill,
Good question on the TL. My points are 9-1-00 and 11-6-00 to draw my line 
(it is also a "pit only" chart and ignores Globex trading). Your red line 
appears to also start at early September and your second pivot early 
November, so they should be the same? The white line you drew starts from the 
November pivot and catches a second pivot that is the same pivot mine did as a 
third touch. My data at 9-1-00 says a high of 1579.90 which would only be for 
the March contract. Your chart is continuous I am betting and the high is more 
like 1540.20 (which would be for the December contract on 9-1-00) right? That is 
why the white line looks identical to mine after 11-6-00. Interesting since 
there has be discussion about continuos Vs non-continuos charts. My weekly and 
monthly charts are continuos, but not daily's.
 
On count there is not a simple answer, but I do know that the default in 
AGET is 300 bars when you build any standard chart (that can be overridden to 
any quantity you want though which at times changes the count). I know that it 
has been stated that somewhere between 100 and 140 bars (from Bill Williams "New 
Trading Dimensions") will give the right action with the 5/35 oscillator as far 
as identifying wave 4's (where it goes to zero or below). Which is what you want 
to identify for many AGET trading signals (Type 1's and Type 2's). In truth 
each wave structure supposedly falls into the next higher (and lower if you 
break down waves), so it doesn't matter that much, if you understand what I am 
saying. I don't really care if it is a subminor wave 4, a minor wave 4 or a wave 
4, depending on the previous action, they will all dictate what direction I want 
to trade and they all will be the same direction. Likewise when counts 
change from wave 5's to wave 3's (5/35 oscillator in the wave 5 is bigger than 
the one for the wave 3), the trade directions are still correct. Hope that helps 
answer your question?
don ewers