It does pretty well in tests, but it gives too many signals. It quickly backs out of buy signals that don't lead anywhere, but it sticks with stocks during breakouts.
If you use it with stochastics and the beloved Bollinger bands, you can thin out the signals and get some good results. Witness AOL last week.
But it isn't BNS as it was originally conceived, I don't think. I don't know what it is -- some sort of spinoff, or a first effort. It's sort of a rescaled CCI/Price Oscillator cross-over system. It's a leopard that's lost its spots, an ocelot without its tots -- a creature from Dr. Moreau's island, a Californian from New York Island. Or maybe not -- who knows what? I may be entirely mistaken. I was spellbound over the formula at first; then I did some spelunking, and I'm still trying to crawl out. All those parentheses give me clause-trophobia.
I think it might give too many signals because the mean deviation part of the orginal BradCCI formula has been dropped, along with the RedLine indicator. But you might want to try it out -- because of the wonderful things it does.
But who knows? If this version of BNS doesn't work, maybe it could be used as a new designer drug, or marketed by Amway as a carpet cleaner/stain remover, or sold in bottles at TAINJ to unwitting hotel guests.
I've tried to set the formula to music at my charts page, but that didn't work. I haven't received any calls from song publishing firms -- not one. Even if I did, Wolfgang, Chandler and Bill would claim all the profits. They refuse to believe that a trend line made all the difference. (And Wolfgang refuses to believe that you're bringing an actual pitchfork to the TA-athon for his duel with Chandler. He thinks we're talking indicators). |
