Pattern Matching-Recognition

Questions about MultiCharts and user contributed studies.
brodnicki steven
Posts: 407
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Been thanked: 3 times

Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby brodnicki steven » 12 Feb 2010

Is there any Pattern Matching-Recognition feature planned in the future ?
I think it would make a nice add-on module or built-in feature for MC.

User avatar
TJ
Posts: 6586
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: Global Citizen
Has thanked: 971 times
Been thanked: 1907 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby TJ » 02 Oct 2011

brodnicki steven wrote:Is there any Pattern Matching-Recognition feature planned in the future ?
I think it would make a nice add-on module or built-in feature for MC.

You can always code the pattern in an EasyLanguage indicator,
then run it through your chart to get alert, or to make autotrade orders.

Here are some pattern coding examples:
http://www.tradersxchange.com/viewforum.php?f=48
These users thanked the author TJ for the post (total 2):
JoshMWarEagle

sptrader
Posts: 637
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 238 times
Contact:

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby sptrader » 02 Oct 2011

I remember a GUI based pattern recognition program back in the 90's, I think. No coding required, just highlight the desired pattern and the program would search for all similar patterns. I think it also gave stats on what the average price movement was, after the pattern..

User avatar
JoshM
Posts: 2089
Joined: 20 May 2011
Location: The Netherlands
Has thanked: 1525 times
Been thanked: 1485 times
Contact:

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby JoshM » 03 Oct 2011

sptrader wrote:I remember a GUI based pattern recognition program back in the 90's, I think. No coding required, just highlight the desired pattern and the program would search for all similar patterns. I think it also gave stats on what the average price movement was, after the pattern..

In this months Stock & Commodities (October 2011), there's a review of such a program: TBO Advanced Chart Pattern Recognition made by TimbukOne for Windows. I haven't read the whole review and haven't tried the program myself, but according to the reviewer..
TimbukOne appears to have a winner with their Advanced Chart Pattern Recognition software. It produces clear, accurate output that skilled traders and investors can use with other technical tools.

Perhaps worth checking out. :)

Regards,
Josh
These users thanked the author JoshM for the post:
ajcrshr

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 07 Oct 2011

I was not sure what to add to this thread until today so I held back. I guess I got inspired today. This shows another alternative if the available software is not the best. It shows some things to consider too.

I have assumed that artificial intelligence software had a ways to go yet. I guess pattern recognition software is a subset of that and I have assumed that it has a ways to go yet too. I have also assumed that it would not be cheap. Recently I saw a university lecture given by one of the leading artificial intelligence software company leaders (however bear in mind I have not researched these companies). Anyway his lecture added weight to what I suspected when he said "so far there is no software that can do pattern recognition as well as humans". I think he used "near as well" (I figure that means we may not see it within our life time). It just occurred to me that maybe I can find this lecture on the web (I will try to find it this weekend and give the link in this post or another post for this thread). Anyway, I was niave and went ahead and developed some EL coding to find waves which worked better than the stuff that comes with MC but I eventually realized that to get it to find the waves (in their complexity) as well as I can do it would probably take me about 100 years. Luckily the smarter half of my brain stepped in and said to me "times up sir because you have to trade now!!!!", LOL. I also thought that MC may grind to a halt if I got it to work (I did that with TS 4.0 once because I gave it more code than it could handle). I also thought that I just may not be the best in the world either. Lastly I thought I may not be able to afford the best pattern (wave) recognition software in the world if I could buy it. So I dumped that idea and came up with this (which is also a lot more fun I think).

I programmed code to put 6 arrows out and I move them to where the wave tops and bottoms are as I see them. I have 7 charts with varying bar sizes and 1 or 2 sets of arrows go out per chart. A binary search finds the arrows and feeds the data where I can use it (that is the part where everyone is different). Some using this technique may wish to keep all the decisions inside MC. I however have moved literally all my rules out to an external program where I can hook into it and supply my own overriding control. You probably need to be a former programmer to pull that last trick off or get really into programming. I wish I could say all I have to do is move arrows around and the software enters and exits automatically. Slowly I have automated more and more (speeding things up) but I am not at this semi-automatic stage yet. I have to override things a bit here and there.

The negative is of course that you have to be there to do the pattern recognition of the waves. If you are part time just choose a larger wave to trade and that way you do not have to sit there all day (spend more time at entry and exit). In my case I track 2 waves above the wave I trade and 2 waves below the wave I trade. I watch the higher levels somewhat because at times a bounce boundary there can explain some things (especially those really powerful off the wall moves that have you scratching your head and asking "why did it do that"). I find that the rules for the larger waves are pretty much the same (simpler on average). I will say that my daughter in grade 3 had one of those early school tests and she got a special comment "shows unusual ability at pattern recognition". I have never received such a comment but maybe she got it from me and that is why I took my approach. I know some people are not good at pattern recognition and maybe current software could out do them. I will say that one gets better at it (I am way better and faster now than 2 years ago).

As a late update, I tried to find that lecture mentioned above but could not. It is in a program series called "big ideas" and I would have to view dozens of archives to find it. I know I have heard at least two people in the know say that humans are still better than computers a pattern recognition. I am sure we all know it goes without saying that People trying to sell such software may tell us otherwise for obvious reasons.
These users thanked the author bowlesj3 for the post (total 3):
TJJoshMarjfca

khalaad
Posts: 314
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby khalaad » 09 Oct 2011

Fascinating discussion, gentlemen!

At the risk of taking the discussion way beyond my knowledge and understanding, herewith a PDF, and a link, on Support Vector Machines.

Nothing wrong with dreaming: maybe SVM can faciltate tracking an Edwards and Magee as it morphs into something tradable, and/or picking greater numbers of WolfeWave Point 5 on multiple instruments faster than Bill Wolff?

http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&sourc ... NEr7tzMzDA

Khalid
Attachments
svmtutorial[1].pdf
(651.76 KiB) Downloaded 233 times
These users thanked the author khalaad for the post (total 2):
bowlesj3TJ

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 09 Oct 2011

Great post khalaad. I need to study it closer. For now here is a response.

I went to this link to study Support Vector machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_vector_machine

I was hoping I could find a term to use as a search string to search these archives ...

http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.w ... 5299472001 (select Big Ideas)

and

http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.w ... O_BigIdeas (the archives for Big Ideas)

. . . to find the lecture about computers being used for artificial intelligence and pattern finding and not yet being as good as humans who are good at this task. Maybe someone can find the lecture. I am going to be watching one a night for a few weeks and maybe I can find it again. I want to get it in this thread if I can.

Anyway, my system is basically a time and distance measure system using what I see as wave tops and bottoms as the reference points. It is a top down (parent child) wave system that drills down eventually to a bar to bar stall triggered entry point (at each level a trend line break in RSI or band or Profit is found or a forward distance stall over time and distance is found). I never use straight lines in price for trend lines now (been there, done that for 6 years, hate that). It also involves finding bounces (wave line based boundaries) and thus short cutting the shifts in the waves (the supports and resistance found at each wave level as it drills down). Regarding bounces, I have a way of rating the bounce now for quality and unless it is a very high quality bounce I still require a wave shift (support/resistance) at the very lowest level of wave to confirm it (what I call the tiny wave). So I am not sure one can really say it is 100% pattern analysis (I do not think the time and distance element is pattern analysis). It has elements of pattern analysis for sure (a wave is a form of pattern).

A picture is worth a 1,000 words. See the attached png file for what I call a perfect top down shift trade (a pattern recognition trade recognizing a pattern of multiple levels of waves). Top down shift meaning the waves at all levels have a shift. In this case the shift is a break in the prior horizontal RSI level. This picture shows the entry point for my system (typical). I missed this because my bar to bar stall chase parameter is set at 3 units. It needed to be set at 4 units. What can I say. I call the market really well but I am too cautious to be a great trader (working on that in that I use to have that parameter set to only 1 unit, LOL). I need a more gutsy partner who can get me to take that parameter up to 4, LOL. I recently programmed my software to adjust this chase setting automatically. I need to put the chase setting my software recommended so I can see it in the chart based activity log I have. My software probably recommended 4 or 5 but I clipped it at 3. I am a fuss buss.

I just looked at some wolf wave examples. Scary!!!!! I personally would not touch that with a 10 foot pole. Having said that if there is an RSI and bands placed on it I may be able to find the exact same entry points and exit points with my system. I can't tell without these guides.

One comment. My system can not predict how big the move will be. However I do have a projection for each wave in my 6 arrow sets that I apply to each wave level if find. So if the last arrow is a bottom it has a marker on the chart for the top projection. My rule is I have to go towards the net of these projections (trade with the trend basically except it includes taking reversal trades if prices have moved past the net projection). In my external program I have a list of the waves where I can include or exclude the projections from the calculation. Generally I like to include the waves I show in this picture. So getting back to the topic, my approach is to take smaller trade wave scalps in the direction of the parent wave as long as that projection has not been reached yet (trade with the trend as set by the parent wave or waves). Like I said above. Some people can not see these waves (they are wave blind just like some are color blind). I see them fairly quickly unless they get too complex and even then I can often come up with a good placement for the arrow drop markers. At times there is a conflict and I mark the conflict both ways to get an average net between the projections. So one might ask "What shifts the arrow to the next top or bottom of wave level X?". Answer: 1/ an RSI lead break in the child wave level below wave level X, 2/ a price break in the child wave level below wave level X. or 3/ A wave boundary bounce of wave level X that is not being squeezed by reduced price profit in wave level X. So to me a trading rule has to make logical sense in terms of time or distance and bounce boundaries.

One thing. This top down shift idea will make a lot of sense to programmers. They do it all the time by having a loop within a loop within a loop within a loop (a wave level within a wave level within a wave level within a wave level). It is something I can find very easily with my eyes but I have no idea how to program it (not within my life time anyway). However, once I have found it the computer can check to make sure I did it correctly. Yep. Unfortunately I have to override the computer at times and tell it to ignore it because I can see the pattern but the computer gets it wrong even after I have told it where the markers are. The problem is the computer can not figure out that there is a conflict for example and I want the net projection of the conflict. Another one is the break and surge. The computer can not read this. Lastely the bounce can screw up the computer read.
Attachments
20111004_063417_ES_01_WaveTrackWithRSI.png
20111004_063417_ES_01_WaveTrackWithRSI.png (98.77 KiB) Viewed 781 times
These users thanked the author bowlesj3 for the post (total 3):
sptraderkhalaadTJ

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 09 Oct 2011

Here is another one. I had to come up with a rule because I had trouble with this one regarding choosing a proper trend line. It is a short trade. The same underlying top down shift pattern is found (pattern trading). In this situation there is a tiny wave signal but I have not shown it.

You can see that if I have had trouble with this one the computer program will have even more problems. However the underlying strategy of top down shift is there no doubt.
Attachments
20111007_052133_ES_01_TrendLineCompetitions.png
20111007_052133_ES_01_TrendLineCompetitions.png (114 KiB) Viewed 785 times
Last edited by bowlesj3 on 09 Oct 2011, edited 1 time in total.

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 09 Oct 2011

For those who downloaded the first copy which did not have the circles, I updated it and put in the same color of circles.

Note, there is a very small hard to see tiny wave signal at the end (a true one). However the small wave shift is the signal I chose (see the very hard to see purple circles). I find that many times I get stuck marking the small waves at such a small size that I can not really get the tiny waves in. So I have programmed it just this weekend to tell me there are 2 or less tiny waves within my small wave I have marked and it will ask me if I want to use the small wave for triggering instead. If I answer yes it will feed the three shift signals through the same GVs and tell me when to arm auto trigger for entry. In other words I trick the program to think the signals are coming from the tiny wave when I have in actual fact sent them in from the small wave (or where I have dropped the arrows I normally use for the small wave).

These types of things can trip up a program. Leaving some of it outside program control gives me the option to be flexible with it. The same underlying trading rules are still there however.

khalaad
Posts: 314
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby khalaad » 09 Oct 2011

Good stuff, bowlesj3.

However,
. . . about computers being used for artificial intelligence and pattern finding and not yet being as good as humans who are good at this task.

Why not?

In my opinion the answer should depend how one defines “good”.

Should “good” mean identifying most patterns on one, or two, or three charts, or ability to pick up only some of the patterns in ten, or more, liquid trading instruments? Trading is about opportunities; therefore, for a trader, should not the “good” be measured against the ability to convert more patterns into profitable trading opportunities per any given unit of time?

I think if you give a computer a set of rules, and ask it to signal trading opportunities, you should find over time it doing a rather good job.

Khalid

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 09 Oct 2011

I basically agree. If the code makes money that is all that matters.


The person giving the lecture basically pointed out that computers find simple patterns and humans are better at finding complex patterns. My examples are examples of very complex patterns (that have strange distortions in price but we humans can easily see through it to see the underlying pattern) that are easy for us to see but hard to program. As far as making a lot of money in a short period of time I think George Soros has proven you can make a lot of money with one trade (there is more than one way to skin a cat is what I am saying).

I went back and reread Steven's original question.
Is there any Pattern Matching-Recognition feature planned in the future ?
I think it would make a nice add-on module or built-in feature for MC.


I have a suspicion that the MC staff will never attempt it but in a way they already do have some code that finds simple patterns. So that leads to the question "What do we mean exactly by pattern recognition".
Last edited by bowlesj3 on 10 Oct 2011, edited 1 time in total.

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 09 Oct 2011

I scanned all the lectures again and could not find the one about pattern recognition. I think it is beyond their archive hold memory. However I went to Google and entered the string "can humans find patterns better than computers" and I found this.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question ... -computers

So I guess that is it. Again, I suspect the MultiCharts people will not try something that humans seem to be a lot better at. Can we make more money with a simple program to find simple patterns. Maybe?

khalaad
Posts: 314
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby khalaad » 10 Oct 2011

You could design
a simple program to find simple patterns.
Or, you could research alternative PowerLanguage-based means to duplicate as much as may be possible the signals you get from your method. I do not know how your method works, but hope the following three alternative-way examples may lead to ideas how you may go about the replication.

1 -- In their book Trading Systems -- a new approach to system development and portfolio optimization, Emilio Tomasini and Urban Jaekle describe a Triangle System:
The triangle pattern is a very strong, profitable pattern since the logic behind it is sound.

Please note that we do not disclose this code but just describe its logic.

But, as you might have recognised, before that final breakout occurred smaller movements out of the boundaries of the triangular figure took place. While a good discretionary trader might ignore the false breakouts, such “spikes” are difficult to program on a computer. First of all it is difficult to identify such a triangular pattern. Then if your algorithm has found it, to draw the legs of the triangle you must tell the PC where the triangle starts and which points define the legs. Will you ignore the spikes in your calculations or will you include them? This will be different for each situation.

Furthermore when will the triangle end and how will you calculate the profit target from the triangular shape? For the discretionary trader these points are very easy to see, but on a PC it is a long list of programming tasks.

To overcome these issues we took a different, more abstract approach. We add a simple moving average of the last 200 closing prices and a volatility indicator of the last 300 bars to the same Euro, 5 minute chart (Figure A2.2). On this example you see how the symmetrical triangle can be programmed. The figure shows that shortly before the breakout occurred, at the position of the black vertical line (called “set-up point”), two conditions were true at the same time:

1. The volatility indicator of the last 300 bars has dropped to its lowest point.
2. The moving average of the last 200 closing prices is moving nearly horizontal.

With these two clear simple conditions we can program the set-up of the triangle pattern, or better call it the low volatility/flat moving average pattern. Because like this we do not program a pattern recognition logic which is identifying symmetrical triangles. Instead we are only looking for low volatility phases and for phases in which the market tends sideways at the same time, described by the horizontal movement of the moving average.

This is a much weaker condition than the exact pattern recognition but helps us to simplify our programmed trading system logic to put it into reality. Our two set-up conditions could well occur in other patterns, e.g. if the market consolidates within a rectangular small trading range.
Now the entry logic can be completed as following. If our set-up with the two conditions is true we place a long entry stop order a fixed amount above the current market price and symmetrically a short entry stop order the same amount below the current market price. The long and short entry levels act as a natural stop loss and reversal point of our initiated positions. So if we have entered the market long and the market shortly after proves us wrong and changes to the down side, we exit our long position and enter the market in the opposite direction short. Thus our logic lets the market decide about its breakout direction and just follows it. We exit the position at a profit target which we determine from the difference of the high and the low within the last 300 bars. If the profit target is not reached shortly after the breakout we exit the position with a trailing stop instead.
From my own experience

2 -- I can say with confidence:

the pattern recognizing High > High[1] may be the mathematical written as ((High[1] - Low) > (High - Low[1])), and can anticipate price action rather than merely follow it; same for ((High[1] - Low) < (High - Low[1])) instead of Low < Low[1].

3 -- And:

polynomial of appropriate width with standard deviations work quite well as (the graphically derived) JM Hurst Curvilinear Envelopes.

Hope this helps.

Khalid
Attachments
Figure A2.2.pdf
(31.71 KiB) Downloaded 113 times
EURUSD_gann-hurst.png
EURUSD_gann-hurst.png (75.9 KiB) Viewed 809 times
These users thanked the author khalaad for the post:
TJ

bowlesj3
Posts: 2028
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 405 times

Re: Pattern Matching-Recognition

Postby bowlesj3 » 10 Oct 2011

I think there are a lot of methods that work very well actually. Once one finds a method that works well the smartest thing to do is stick with it and become efficient at it via whatever method that involves. Whether it is complex or simple is not important. Just that it works (works as well as one wants it to work actually since some want to get really rich and some just want to keep trading and have a life).

Triangles are interesting. I usually know they are going to occur before they occur (or I suspect so and I am not too surprised when they occur). They are a fight basically. They are basically prices trying to get to a target but a barrier is in the way (normally an RSI level that has been bounced off of a few times but the profit on each bounce is reducing). Some traders take the barrier side and some take the projection side (through the barrier). Usually you can know which side will win before the triangle even starts but not always. You make this decision based upon what the parent and grand parent waves are deciding and you wait for confirmation of that based upon the return to expansion (without a confirmation between the two I avoid the situation). If you do what I just suggested you do not care too too much about the actual fight itself. These will often take a break and surge ending too (break and surge is a very common pattern that occurs at all wave levels and in all sorts of situations including the expansion of a triangle). It could be a double level triangle where the wave level above the trade wave is squeezing its wave boundary barrier but there is still lots of profit in the parent wave so the boundary to that wave keeps working. So eventually what happens is the parent wave profit reduces to the point that the barrier bounce starts to hold little profit value in trying to take that risk. So as the child wave (the trade wave) approaches the parent wave barrier it starts to hit the expected resistance which creates the fight (the contraction or triangle). Sometimes the fight is very short and it goes trough with little trouble (morning volume can be a factor here). Sometimes it is long and drawn out creating a lingering triangle. A triangle is nothing more than a contraction and entering a trade during contraction is not smart (low odds). You are better to enter during an expansion (makes sense because profit is just starting to increase in size in your trade wave). Now if you have entered at the other edge of the parent wave (I am meaning the wave level above the trade wave and on the other side of that wave long before it hit the barrier where the triangle is likely to be created) and believe the barrier is going to be broken then this is okay because if the barrier works one more time you will at least have some of the profit and you get out and go in again thinking that this time the barrier will be broken (usually the fight itself will tell that next time it will be smooth sailing through the barrier). I have made the mistake of entering a trade during a contraction and I do my best not to make that mistake again. These are the reasons I like to use the arrows to track at least 4 or 5 wave levels above my trade wave level. Math does not help one here. It is so simple. Wait for internal expansion (the triangle expansion) to match the external signals (the larger waves) and you have a good trade. This way you can know in advance when a triangle is likely to happen long before it actually does. If the expansion (the internal) does not match the external you have a conflict and you stay out. My system basically involves trying to get a wave boundary (a bounce) and a support resistance both in my favor and the projection of the next wave level up (the parent to my trade wave) must be matching. I like to get involved when my trade wave is expanding in the same direction as the wave level above it and trigger when the wave below is also expanding in that very same direction (however not all trades are this perfect). Sometimes you can get trades where 5 or 6 levels are all in their very first phase of expansion at the same time (my first example above is that situation but I did not realize it until that night - my error). So anyway, getting back to the triangle, if the barrier to the parent is not broken and the parent is expanding away from that barrier then this creates a very high odds trade (in other words the parent is not squeezing the barrier). You are better to wait for this type of trade than get into a fight with a contraction. Your profits come quicker during expansion and they linger in doubt during a contraction. So if you think the barrier wave boundary will work one more time (because there is still enough profit left in that wave) then wait for the expansion away from the barrier and hold until that move slows down. The only way to learn these things is to track all wave levels at all times and see it with your own eyes working over and over again. Let me attach a simple picture to try and give a feel for this. Give me a moment (this is an expansion but there is no contraction really).

Okay I am back, this picture is from this morning with the result showing too. The red lines shows a profit increase in the parent wave above the trade wave (from 287 to 475). Perfect. Even better because the grand parent wave is showing a strong signal. The grand parent signals is what I like to call an arrow head. It is where prices moved up fast and are coming down slow. Picture an arrowhead pointing up to the top of the wave. A true arrow head will come down on the same angle on both sides. If the price movement moves up matching the arrow head you have imagined on the left side but comes down slow (not matching a true arrow head on the right side) this is a pretty good signal (for that wave level only). Great. now we just have to figure out how to get in on the likely very large and fast move. So you drop down to the trade wave level and look for your signal there (it is a shift meaning a break or a forward stall on the opposite side of the break). Once you signal there you drop down to the wave level below that (same thing again). Once you signal there you drop one more level down and you have your entry point (look for a bar to bar stall). My suggestion. Find great trades like this and reduce stress levels by staying away from contraction traps (they can surprise you especially if the market makers insert a break and surge for your convenience, LOL). There is some math here (an increase from 287 to 475) and my program will let me know just in case I missed it (probably not however). When you are always tracking all wave levels (5 or 6 levels above your trade wave level) you see these things long before they occur (or at least you suspect them).

I forgot. The pink line shows a bit of RSI resistance in that wave. I normally do not watch for this in the 10 minute bars. Normally it is in the 1 minute bars. That part is not a perfect example. So the idea here is we are to get into a trade close to that wall boundary and we have that increasing profit in our favour. Result $862 dollars quickly up with no fight to worry about. With a trade like this you can give it good hard money.

So here is the bottom line with this. For me to see this is like incredibly easy now. However to use math to find it (or a program) would be taking something incredibly easy and making it harder than it needs to be. Why would I want to make that error. Just because I programmed for 31 years (19 years full time) why do I want to fall in love with programming that much. In my assembler programming class in school I was the only one who got 106 out of 100 in one of the tests because I knew the octal number system (how to compute with it) and no one else did. What I am saying is I was really good at programming but I am not in love with programming when it comes to trading (try not to get obsessed with it or over use it). I learned to trade like this because I did not have a programming language while I learned. I am sooooooooooooo incredibly happy I did not have it. It reminds me of a story one of my former programming work mates told me. The best thing to do to get over your fear of a computer is go up to it and slap it a few times each day to show it who is boss. I like to kick programming around a bit so I do not fall in love with it too too much. I think this thread was a great opportunity for that. Hey humans can actually out do a computer still. Fancy that! I love to hear that. It is much like the old saying "never fall in love with a stock". Basically the same thing. Having said all that I have done a lot of programming (obviously the 287 and 475 and 862 got there because I programmed it). Programming is great but I just do not want to loose sight of the fact that if it is easier without it I do not want to let it make things harder. For me I use the program as more of a discipline tool to keep me organized, focused and efficient. It helps gather information systematically in one place to make it easier to decide (a checklist in other words to ensure I covered off all my standard stuff). The actual decision is a visual one to confirm the numbers because sometimes the computer gets it wrong. To try and program everything that I can do easily visually would be very very hard. So the wave marking part of my system is simple because I use my eyes. The triggering part I have automated since the computer can do it faster and perfectly every time. It can only do it better because it is restricted to one wave level as well as the bar to bar stall for final triggering. So in conclusion, my suggestion is "perfect what seems to work for you".
Attachments
20111010_133039_ES_10_expand.png
20111010_133039_ES_10_expand.png (24.2 KiB) Viewed 834 times
These users thanked the author bowlesj3 for the post (total 3):
sptradergarpTJ


Return to “MultiCharts”