Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : TA Science Projects & Experimental Indicators -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HeyRainier who wrote (141)	6/1/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: ftth	Respond to of 237

Hi Rainier, well the story goes kind of like this: I have close to a hundred different custom indicators that I've toyed with. Each one seems to lead to a few more. Some I can see right away they don't show much promise; some look reasonable; some look very promising. I make this assessment with only a hand full of test cases, file it, then move on to the next. At some point I'll go back and spend more time on the "reasonable" and "promising" ones. This seems to be the approach that's worked for all the indicator innovators I've studied. Rather than think I can just sit down and come up with "the" indicator in one sitting, it evolves over time as you begin to get an intuitive feel for the types of mathematical operations needed to exploit certain characteristics. There's a complete consensus on this view among the indicator innovators I've studied. Also, I think it would be impossible to devise these adaptive indicators I always talk about without having this foundation. So, to answer your question in a round about way, the alternative to stochastics in post 7 fell into the promising category. I have a few derivatives of this that also fell into the promising category. I'm afraid I can't give you a better answer than that regarding its effectiveness. I'm also not sure there's a consistently reliable way to determine effectiveness besides real trades where you commit to using the indicator for at least 9-12 months of trades...even if the first 6 trades turn out to be duds. Every other method of assessing effectiveness has its flaws. Nothing will ever completely simulate the real thing. Why 9-12 months? I'm convinced from studying the work of the indicator innovators that any indicator will have dud periods like this, and there's no reason to believe that the day you start using it might be the bottom of its effectiveness cycle. If I've done my homework and am convinced that it has all the properties needed to be effective on average, then I'll be able to stick with it through such inevitable dud periods. If I didn't do my homework, I'd be more likely to abandon it after a few dud trades in a row, even though the next trade could be the start of a string of wins. So I'm willing to work with anyone that wants to pursue it further,and feel it is worth pursuing further, but I don't have any holy grails to give out today.:o) At the present time, I can't recommend or not recommend it in good conscience. It still needs work. Promising....but needs work. dh