| Welcome Guest, please sign in to participate in a discussion. | Search | Active Topics | |
Registered User
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 1,356
|
APOL jumping up on this down day. TD-sequential buy of the TDST-support line. took a couple August 45 calls at $0.42 .
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 1,356
|
Im affraid I'm on the wrong side of this one. broke my rule of trading against the currents. should have waited for the day to unfold before making a decision.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/25/2008
Posts: 218
|
Hi pthegreat , I have enjoyed all your posts. I am using TC and was curious which of the below pcf's you would suggest using for the TD Sequential Setup. I am new at this, a little confused, trying to learn from yours and others posts.
Is this the basic sequential setup:
C < C4 AND C1 < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 >= C13--seems like it is counting one too many days
Is this the "perfected" sequential setup:
C < C4 AND C1 < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 >= C13 AND (L < L2 AND L < L3 OR L1 < L2 AND L1 < L3)
And finally, I have had better backtesting with this formula i picked up off of worden, but it does not seem to coincide with the sequential setup. it usually occurs a few days after the sequential and seems to offer a better entry point:
C < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 < C13 AND (L < L2 AND L < L3 OR L1 < L2 AND L1 < L3)
Thank you for your guidance.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 1,356
|
Is this the basic sequential setup:
C < C4 AND C1 < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 >= C13--seems like it is counting one too many days
Yes,
C9>=C13 is the "price flip" part of the seq.setup.
Is this the "perfected" sequential setup:
C < C4 AND C1 < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 >= C13 AND (L < L2 AND L < L3 OR L1 < L2 AND L1 < L3)
I haven't used PCF's in a long time, but I think it needs to look like this:
C < C4 AND C1 < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 >= C13 AND ((L <= L2 AND L <= L3) OR (L1 <= L2 AND L1 <= L3))
here's Perl's description of the "perfected setup":
the low of bars eight or nine of the TD buy setup, or a subsequent low, must be less then, or equal to, the lows of bars six and seven of the TD buy setup"
the change I made in your formula takes care of checking whether bars eight or nine is less/equal to lows of bars six or seven. However I don't know how to translate "or a subsequent low" into PCF.
as reference look at the thread " http://forums.worden.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=44977
page 1, I posted a page out of Perl's book.
again I haven't used PCF's, but it seemed to me you needed an extra set of () and <= instead of <.
And finally, I have had better backtesting with this formula i picked up off of worden, but it does not seem to coincide with the sequential setup. it usually occurs a few days after the sequential and seems to offer a better entry point:
C < C5 AND C2 < C6 AND C3 < C7 AND C4 < C8 AND C5 < C9 AND C6 < C10 AND C7 < C11 AND C8 < C12 AND C9 < C13 AND (L < L2 AND L < L3 OR L1 < L2 AND L1 < L3)
seems like a modified version :) indeed doesn't coincide.
Let me know your results,
Thx,
P.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/25/2008
Posts: 218
|
Hi pthegreat,
Thank you for answering my post. That really helps. I think you are right concerning the inability to discover "a subsequent low" after the buy setup is complete. The only way I can think is to move them over to a watchlist every day and go from there.
It is funny you mention the last pcf as being more reliable. I have done some backtesting recently looking at about 2000 trades using this pcf. I have found it to be more reliable, offer a better entry level and a higher %winner. So now I am working on a strategy that has the buy set up, the perfection, and then the alternate third pcf occurring within a couple days of each other. I have found if the 3rd pcf is removed too many days from the buy set up, it is not as reliable.
Important to note, the test I ran manually did not look at TDST lines as they are difficult in TC. However, the results were very attractive. Long setups performed better than short setups, but that is only limited testing in somewhat bullish market periods.
I would love to know your thoughts and look forward to your posts.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 1,356
|
Although I still have a hangover from this trade, It does starting to look good. I'd say a test of the 50DMA is probable.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 1,356
|
stop should have been avoided, discovered a bug in my code. see thread :
http://forums.worden.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=44977
|
|
|
Guest-1 |