This topic contains 246 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
if dissimilarity is just divergence couldn’t it be a similar concept to mean reversion?
also the lowest TF could potentially always be the blueprint as its the origin of everything after it
i do have old man brain so if im not making sense please ignore me :)
“I believe the very best money is made at the market turns. Everyone says you get killed trying to pick tops and bottoms and you make all
your money by playing the trend in the middle. Well for twelve years I have been missing the meat in the middle but I have made a lot of
money at tops and bottoms.”
– Paul Tudor Jonesif dissimilarity is just divergence couldn’t it be a similar concept to mean reversion?
Yes, I think so.
i do have old man brain so if im not making sense please ignore me :)
Me, too
Me, too
Sure?
A good trader is a realist who wants to grab a chunk from the body of a trend, leaving top- and bottom-fishing to people on an ego trip. (Dr. Alexander Elder)
Me, too
Sure?
Age is relative. If you’re the oldest guy under your colleagues …
Yet another theorem to consider – the Ornstein isomorphism theorem
@anti : About the Lambda, it is very very interesting.. thanks. In one of EUd (Eurusdd) post, he said that it can be applied to TZ and his other tools (ex. Arrow) . My understanding about lambda is the Right value we choose for the Wing (h bars) in Tz. So, this exact value can be used for the arrow tools too ?
To create a good system, we need a good Plan and hard work, i know it is not easy, and we must do so many testing, spending so many hours on developing and must be patient too … including Waiting for the right Time to entry, etc …
I have so many questions to ask to my self, but still can not find the good answer for it. Example:
*) the Lambda in Tz can be applied to all of the TF (by using the same value), or it must be changed for each TF ? This is also the same question to Arrow.
*) the Lambda in Arrow tools is the distance (in time or bar, not in pips) from the problem bar to arrow, or from arrow to entry point or from problem bar to entry point ?
*) EUd said that the key of success lies in the Time-Bar-Similarity … this is not so clear for me. Does it mean the similarity across multi time frame ?Hm … so many home work to do at the moment ….
Hi @anti, have you any idea on this ?
As “k” said in a post, all are related … the word related means the same value we use for one indicator, must be applied to other, or just to say that it has some how relationship among them, but we must adjust the value for each tools ?
Lets say TZ is similar to ZZ, but it has different behavior … i am not sure that we must use the same value for TZ and ZZ ..
Lets say Stoch related to ZZ. The begin of Stoch is the begin of ZZ leg, the end of Stoch is the end of ZZ leg, the mid of Stoch is the mid of ZZ. We can calculate the mean, but in pips or in bars or in time or in other variables ? And some Deviation here and there must be applied …
t.
Yes, lambda seems to be related to “the right h”. But as long we don’t know how to exactly determine this right h we can’t apply it. The more tricky part with TZs and Similarities is when to enter the counter-trend trade.
I don’t think that TZs are similar to real ZZ legs because a ZZ only appears if a particular prize move occured. And yes, you can relate the end of a ZZ to Stoch 100/0 readings. With the right settings you may reach >90 % common ZZ leg & stoch100/0 occurences if you increase the calculation lookback time.
if dissimilarity is just divergence couldn’t it be a similar concept to mean reversion?
Yes, I think so.
Would it be possible to look for any two TFs with the best “correlation” of similarity according to certain parameters and then for a certain degree of non-correlation to determine the moment of input to return to correlation? It would probably be demanding on CPU performance. TFs would be best to emulate after discrete steps, eg 5 min. The more detailed, the better.
I do not know whether I formulated it in English clearly …
Hi meda, I understand your question. The first problem is that you have to use/generate two functions that correlate most of the time. If you just compare the Close of M5 and the Close of the laste M1 candle within that 5 minutes you’ll never see any anti-correlation. The second problem is that you usually don’t know which TF will react in order to correct the dissimilarity.
was messing around with zz confluence. just for fun using 10 random oscillators/settings and waiting for the majority to gravitate above a percentage line.
each one falls into a mild supply/demand origin for another point of confluence.
“I believe the very best money is made at the market turns. Everyone says you get killed trying to pick tops and bottoms and you make all
your money by playing the trend in the middle. Well for twelve years I have been missing the meat in the middle but I have made a lot of
money at tops and bottoms.”
– Paul Tudor Jones@lowphat. It’s obvious, isn’t it?! A TZ (or final ZZ leg) is no more than a (short-term) turning point. However, I’ve started to use Sciurus’ indictor in a different way. Using your h settings on a M5 chart you can assume that you get on average at least 5 – 6 bars until a true TZ appears. Thus, whenever a first PTZ on a opposite site (in comparison to former PTZ cluster) you could trand in that direction with the intention that you will have some more PTZs before a real top/bottom occurs … The only question is when to enter and when to exit. I’d enter if the next bar makes a higher high/lower low than the problem bar. But where to exit?
@anti not only the final zz leg but the yellow arrows are were the zigzag readjusted which almost always coincide with a potential fractal/TZ as they both look for h bars to the left for a new high to draw. my personal entry would be on a s/d area as that’s the only thing that has made my account grow(at least before fxcm got kicked out the US) but yes the entry point will probably be different for each person. as for targets some have used the previous final leg/last TZ created.the reason this can be a good target is that stops and orders are usually placed around the previous highs/lows.
i have also seen people have good results with picking a static number of pips for a target. also if you get an average of 5 or 6 bars you could also try a bar(time) based stop instead of order-flow or pip based.“I believe the very best money is made at the market turns. Everyone says you get killed trying to pick tops and bottoms and you make all
your money by playing the trend in the middle. Well for twelve years I have been missing the meat in the middle but I have made a lot of
money at tops and bottoms.”
– Paul Tudor JonesAh, ok. Congratulation. But I don’t see how you trade it. You entered whenever a the first PTZ in counter trend direction occured and at least one of you oscillators was the first time below 50?
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by
Anti.
let me clarify, the image i posted was just something that looked interesting . i was noticing when all OSC’s get above say 20% with the majority above 50% the potential fractal had way less chance of running a full 6 bars before a true fractal top/bot. my live trading method is more about trading a pullback back past a mid fractal if the long term trend agrees with that direction for confluence.
“I believe the very best money is made at the market turns. Everyone says you get killed trying to pick tops and bottoms and you make all
your money by playing the trend in the middle. Well for twelve years I have been missing the meat in the middle but I have made a lot of
money at tops and bottoms.”
– Paul Tudor JonesWho of you can give me the mathematical reason why the 3-linear subsequences out of a 5-sequence idea can’t work in the way Eurusdd described it. The answer is really very simple and I wonder that nobody has ever remonstrated …
Because of (mis)interpreting a conditional probability during the formation of the subsequence conditions as the final, a posteriori probability of the theorem.
You’re good, @flx23. The main assumption of the theorem was that prize is generated by a stochastic process that gives equal chances for any candle to be either an up or down candle (or having higher highs/lows than the previous candle). However, in his post (see the delivered quotation here) Eurusdd presumes that the probability is shifted whenever two out of the four conditions aren’t met. But indeed, the probability for the last of five values (where the first four have been realized) is still 0.5. Thus. prize will do what it wants to do.
However, if you go through the prize history and analyze each chunk of 5 candles in regards to OHLC, then you’ll see that about 93.75 % of these 5-chunks fulfill at least one of the four conditions (see image here). That may mean that prize resembles the output of a stochastic process that has been initially assumed. If you are able to trade with the info that there is at least one increasing or decreasing subsequence in a set of 5 candles, then you may find this theorem useful (however, I couldn’t make any use of it). Another way to use the subsequence idea to your advantage is to count the number of fulfilled increasing/decreasing subsequences within each 5-chunk and use it as a trend-following tool. The beauty of the subsequence theory is that you can always study historical (sub)sequences that are anchored in the most recent (the last) candlestick.
Nevertheless, the more time I investigated to find anything useful in Eurusdd’s theories, the more I come to the conclusion that they are merely useless. Maybe they may work with a different interpretation. I conclude that the main reason why some are able to trade this profitable lies within hedging and/or money management. But if you don’t agree with me, please feel free to convince me … Otherwise I’ll stop my research here (have a lot of other research to do).
@anti: You know my opinion on Eurusdd and the reliability of his statements. I must admit that his almost correct claims and concepts at least thaught me to be critical and they revealed a quite different view on markets. In that regard, they may be worth a mint, but almost surely not too much time of detailed investgations.
Yes. However, a big delusion of many of us. I’m sure that more threads will be startet @ FF in order to trade some of his ideas and that many more people will waste their time to deeply study it. Yes, all of his ideas are quite novel and outstanding. But in the end a good idea should work …
the only thing i found useful in the sim thread was that it makes you look at price action around inefficient market moves. this put me on the path of Order Flow. I just want to be sitting in a pile of imbalanced orders regardless of what various stats or indicators say about the next bar because it’s the imbalanced orders that move price not the indicator or stats :) this can end up being the most important thing you can pay attention to.
“I believe the very best money is made at the market turns. Everyone says you get killed trying to pick tops and bottoms and you make all
your money by playing the trend in the middle. Well for twelve years I have been missing the meat in the middle but I have made a lot of
money at tops and bottoms.”
– Paul Tudor JonesWell, I’ve said I’d stop posting and researching Eurusdd’s strategies. However, last night I’ve found some other posts reminding me on TZs. Thus, I’ve decided to invest some further days. But maybe I don’t have to and some of you already did.
What I’m recently interested in is some kind of frequency distribution for the recurrent zones which show what the probability for an additional move (the
(n+1)th move) through a zone is it already has been visitedntimes by prize. Have some of you ever studied it?Let me introduce a new terminology. Instead of transient prizes I’ll talk about
(0)-recurrent zones. In general, a prize is(l)-recurrent wheneverl >= 1. It means that the prize under consideration has been hit at least oncehbars after a problem bar. In that way we shift the focus from transient states to recurrent states and look how often one recurrent state has been already hit within the interval[i-h, i+h].Why? The question arose “how do I know if a recurrent zone will be recurrent within the lifetime (in regards to the problem bar) again?”. Or: Will the prize reach again a particular (already
(1)-recurrent zone. I just started to analyze some setups. What I found so far is that for EURUSD H1 withh = 50you’ll have a96.6 %chance to see a further hit of a particular prize that is already(1)-recurrent until the candlei+hhas been build.Before I continue I’d like to see some activity and some useful contributions to this topic (ideas, indicators, concepts, trading strategies, etc. …
isn’t h=50 with a 96.6% probability quite a bit lower than a regular t-bar? I haven’t tried this particular method because it seems a little messy, but I suppose not without its potential merit. What I mean is that within the life
What it sounds like (and maybe I’m wrong, a picture is always helpful :) ) is that you’re essentially looking at a histogram of market price – a count of how many times a particular price, or bin of prices, has been touched within time span h. While I haven’t tried this particular method because it seems a little messy, but I suppose not without its potential merit. What I mean is that within the lifetime of a particular bar x, price can run up and down many times. That’s just theory of course. In the rough reflexiveness of the market, hourly bars don’t tend to be too range bound. I think it’s worth a look, at least to understand how that market structure behaves.
I have, however, looked at a much broader version of this, looking at how price flows through the 100 and 50 pip levels (1.1700,1.1600,1.1650,etc). Combined with transient theory it might be cool to study. I might put it back on my list of things to revisit when I get the chance.
What it sounds like (and maybe I’m wrong, a picture is always helpful :) ) is that you’re essentially looking at a histogram of market price – a count of how many times a particular price, or bin of prices, has been touched within time span h. While I haven’t tried this particular method because it seems a little messy, but I suppose not without its potential merit. What I mean is that within the lifetime of a particular bar x, price can run up and down many times. That’s just theory of course. In the rough reflexiveness of the market, hourly bars don’t tend to be too range bound. I think it’s worth a look, at least to understand how that market structure behaves.
Yes, that’s exactly what I did. I’ll post some charts in the future. However, my first findings are that most recurrent levels are hit more often than two times …
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
