| karanjit |
|
Gold User, Member, Platinum User, TeleChart
|
| Registered User |
|
|
|
|
| Unsure |
|
| Monday, July 25, 2005 |
| Monday, February 6, 2006 5:14:55 PM |
7
[0.00% of all post / 0.00 posts per day] |
|
QUOTE (rmr1976) It isn't possible to use a PCF to count waves, as that would require the use of IF/THEN statements to make comparisions.
I agree. You need conditional logic to make these decisions.
The langiage would be easy to design.
Also regarding change of EW count and labeling. When teh complete picture is not known several alternatives may exist. The software just picks just one. You need to be aware of them all. The software if one exists would be good for getting scans provided it recognizes wave structures correctly.
|
|
Also wanted to add that I find that the 30 minute chart gives you greater insight into the pattern, and I look at sticks with high volume. These are more likely to conform to EW theory. EW captures mass psychology and the greater the number of participants the better it works. This is why it works better for the market indicies.
|
Follow up for some reason, the notation ( I ) got translated as a bulb icon  in the HTML rendering of the post. I have put parenthesis around the "I" with spaces in this post so that the earlier post may be more readable.
|
I have used both Advanced Get and Profit Source. After tracking the performance in Profit Source of their prescans for two months I realized few of their setups really make money. Some stocks will rise a point or so and give it all back. Some will shoot off but these are rare.
There are several limitations with software:
1. They do not have a big picture view of the wave. Waves have fractal properties so there are smaller order waves in higher order waves. The software does not give you a big picture view. Other limitations are that tehy do not know about truncated fifths and so do the end label of a wave 3 or 5 inaccurately. They do not know much about corrections such as double, triple zigzags or flat, triangle or combination corrections. They very simplistically label everythings as an A B C. Corrections of larger ordes can have subwaves -- the software does not recognize this.
2. The correct way to do EW count is to follow Prechter/Frost/Bolton/Elliott's work. Probably the best book on this is Prechter. Applying the principle takes practice but it is well worth it. The software developer's of these programs probably have not mastered the application of EW theory. The software can only be as good as the software developer's understanding of the principles.
3. I manually label the EW count starting from the grand cycle on the quarterly/monthly chart and work my way in. I have gotten faily good at this and I can do this quickly now, and I trust my own judgement better than the software I have seen. I use a short hand notation to enter notes such as:
.V.{3}.[a.b.c down].{4}
This would mean we are in wave Grand Cycle. In that we are on the last V impulse of wave . With wave V we are in subwave {3} (3 circled) of the primary cycle. The [] denote where we are currently. We are in an a-b-c correction with c going down -- the pattern is not complete. Next stop is end of the correction which marks the {4} end.
Knowing the structure of where we are gives us an idea of where we are headed and what are the primary and counter trend forces at work.
I use TC2005's text tool to label the waves. You can select the write icon to see the tool. Since writing your own text on the waves is so important, I wish TC2005 could simplify this and make the text tool directly available on the upper bar. I have called in this suggestion to tech support.
4. I would highly recommend Precheter's book as a starting point. EW patterns are fun and give you insight like no other system I have seen.
5. I have written my own programs that help me do Fibonnaci ratio analysis after I enter the size of the waves but after a while you can eye the waves and know that the wave if of the proper structure.
6. TC2005 has a fibonnaci retracement tool but it does not display the values on the lines. I have called this in and Telechart support has said that they will pass on my suggestion to add this feature.
7. Applying EW theory is like solving a master puzzle. At times the wave count is ambiguous because it has not completed. But applying EW theory points you to higher probability outcomes.
All the best...
|
QUOTE (tedstarr2) rmr1976,
Thanks for the insight. I have attended several of these seminars where they use AdvancedGet or ProfitSource and basically look for Wave 4 Buys or Wave 5 Sells and get into trades that way. It seems way too simplistic for me, and going to multiple seminars I've taken down their trades that they found through the tool. The track record hasn't been particularly good - the main reason I haven't plunked down $2500 or so for their software.
Plus, I wondered why we were avoiding the Wave 3 stretch, which was often long and strong, giving you the best opportunity for making money.
Anyway, thanks for the observations.
- Ted
|
QUOTE (Bruce_L) I can reproduce the issue. I'm moving this topic to verified bugs.
It seems you can work around this by changing the order of the Personal Criteria Formula to:
TSV24.1 > 0 AND TSV24.2 > 0 AND TSV24.3 > 0 TSV24.4 > 0 AND TSV24.5 > 0 AND TSV24 < 0
Just one word of caution... I had left out an AND operator but the problem persists after making this correction also.
Another thing is that if you add () around the < expression terms, it seems to fix the problem.
|
I created a PCF for TSV cross below 0 as:
TSV24 0 AND TSV24.2 > 0 AND TSV24.3 > 0 TSV24.4 > 0 AND TSV24.5 > 0
When I test it for LM, the test shows the following result:
90.47 0.00 AND 155.99 > 0.00 AND 112.44 > 0.00 97.03 > 0.00 AND 95.76 > 0.00
This is evaulating to "True".
But since 90.47
Is there an issue with operator precedence? In normal algebra, has a higher precedence than logical operator AND which has a higher precedence than OR, and so on.
|
|