Search | User Listing Vidsite | Calendars | Quotes
Home Page ->  Custom TradeTight Routines -> Tools In Team Development -> View ThreadLogon (or Register, or Join TradeTight)

You are logged in as a limited-access Guest.To join TradeTight, first read the info in the Organization & Content room, then click the link above. 

James 1:4 (AMP) ... But let endurance and steadfastness and patience have full play and do a thorough work, so that you may be perfectly and fully developed, lacking in nothing.


Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 3 [50 msgs/pg]
Jump to room :
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/15/2019 3:45 PM (#9400 - in reply to #9399)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
Some general comments, after comparing Post 9344 (last screen shot of parameters) with Post 9397.

1. Moving the CumWndoPdsWyd2Thn to under the Guru_TymFrmFst2Slo makes sense.
2. Moning the CumObvVptMixAcdNnn to under the CumCalcMasterOutput also makes sense.
3. The name MasterSetsFltrTrdNtrXit makes more sense for what it is supposed to do.

=============

"So ... I can:
a. delete it entirely ... maybe add it back in if/when I have time to do a bunch of SW runs
b. delay the offering further and ask for help with the SW runs, to define useful Master settings
...
c ... use "inituitive logic" for now, to set up Master patterns that generally relate to how the routine is being used ... as a Filter, or to define both Entry and Exit for Trades, or to prospect just Entries, or to specifically provide Exits. Later on, maybe, this could be revised or expanded based on SW runs.

Please study the prior post before reading this, and consider the question to be "a, b or c"

=============

I have stated before that I am willing to run SW runs on a remote computer I have access to 24/7, and it is already loaded with OT2018. This could be started almost as soon as the dll and SW is set up properly. I can give you access to that so things would be set up exactly as you desire. You could run an incremental or exhaustive run, whichever you prefer. So b. is an option.

I think a. would be an option only if you want it "out the door" immediately. I prefer b or c.

c also makes sense. While many parameters and functionality have changed since the testing, they were changed BECAUSE of the testing (for the most part). The intuitive logic is better now after our first test than it would have been without that testing.

Having 9 filter patterns, 9 trade patterns, 9 entry patterns, 9 exit patterns does make sense, but your cautionary note:

"NOTE: this is intuitive ... if I embark on a "study" of this it will burn up a lot of hours and will only have just my opinion ... and (most dangerous aspect) might compel me to play with other inputs etc which opens up another pandora's box."

is a concern. This stradicator could be adjusted and tweeked "until the cows come home", but its functionality is already obvious. I think the worst form of the 80/20 rule would come into play: Spend 80% of future time on (at most) a 20% improvement (I doubt it would be anywhere near 20%).

Therefore, my preferred options would be b,c,a in that order. While the SW is running, you could focus on some other tasks you need to get done.

=============

Concerning your suggestion in Post 9399,

"I failed to consider that the CumVolMeth should be part of the Master variants. Since it applies equally to Core and Xprt, only the classic variants should likely be part of the mix.

However, maybe 36*4=144 is a bit excessive for the Master (???) ... alternative below ... ALL FOUR variants use CumMeth=1,2,3,4 as "inner" loop ... total = 16*4 = 64 patterns ... "

My own feeling on this is that while the CumVolMeth does change the results somewhat, the other factors like begin and end and # of bars for reversal and slope and MA periods are far more important and changes the results to a greater degree. Ideally, the 36 or 64 variants would pick the best of the 4 CumVolMeth for that particular variant, and in the Xprt version, the user could fine tune with the CumVolMeth slider.

I agree that the classic variants should be used.

These are my opinions.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/15/2019 4:07 PM (#9401 - in reply to #9400)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Thanks for offer re SW

My concern is not machine time. It’s setting up the tests, then evaluating the results that will take significant time. It requires NFX modules first. Roughly a week of work not counting SW runs.

If you’d like, please propose in detail how you think the tests should be structured, to identify the best settings for each of the four categories. The specs should include how the strategies should be structured, what constraints on the looping, what performance Params should be in focus, and how the tens of thousands of runs should be culled in Excel.

Need specs for each of the four cat’s: Filter, Trades, Entries, Exits.

Heads up - this is not easy to do ;-)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
SalimHira
Posted 3/15/2019 4:35 PM (#9402 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Veteran

Posts: 162
1002525
Location:
USA: MD, Columbia
Hi Jim:

Glad to see you back after a short hiatus. Well and strong :-).

At first, I was leaning primarily to option (a) - simply roll it out, tweak, q/a, enhancements, etc... at later date after bringing in more feedback from actual purchased users of the DLL, who may also want other options, tweaks, etc. added... You may have to revisit an enhancement version at later date anyways, imho.

Than, skipping (b) as lots of tests and interpretations, I prefered option (c), I liked that a lot, but again, this statement caught me to say - STOP !!

>>> "NOTE: this is intuitive ... if I embark on a "study" of this it will burn up a lot of hours and will have just my opinion ... and (most dangerous aspect) might compel me to play with other inputs etc which opens up another pandora's box. "

I like option (c) for simple reason that "no entry is similar to an exit that must be taken just for the sake of taking an exit just cause an entry is made to counter" - as its all based on a "PRIME" price location whereupon Entries & Exit happen.... analogy to real estate / property location - good location (higher price, higher reward) v.s. depressed location (lower price, lower reward). In retrospect, if I am only trading Longs (or only Shorts), than an entry location is very important for me, unlike taking arbitrary entries every time all conditions are satisfactory an entry is taken.

I think you have already conveyed well in your post as I am explaining it in a generic manner via another angle option (c).

So, its still option (a), and option (c) if without delay, if it is not likely to add more hours, delays, beta testing, etc. and you feel its a viable solution first time around to add to DLL. (keep it for next enhancement with addt'l feedback from users, plus incorporate option b in it too with possibly more beta testers on hand), imho.

Therefore, my preference would be a, with hesitancy on c & b.

Hope it helps. Thanks.

p.s. Oops - I just read Ken's post after writing above - hehe, we have in reverse order, and more chaos for Jim.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/15/2019 5:22 PM (#9403 - in reply to #9402)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
Hi Salim,

Yes, you may be right. Upon further reflection, and reading Jim's reply to my post, options b or c both sound like it will take a month or more. Neither one would save time, or extra work for Jim. Both will require extensive testing. Since Core is designed for a "high level" view, it can function in the short term as a poor man's Master Set. Looking at option c again, Jim points out that it would be just his opinion, probably by the SBAS squinting option over lots of charts. This will add a layer of subjectivity to a basically objective stradicator.

Thinking of the N users, they would probably have more confidence in a SW run that sets the Master Set, rather than a SBAS Master Set, even though those "squinty eyes" have a lot of experience and a calculating brain behind them.

So, as you point out, users will have suggested enhancements and tweaks. If there is some time before the enhancements with option a (very likely), the upgrade would be a much better product with a Master Set. Option b still requires some SBAS time as well to choose the best variants.

So I guess I am saying that I think option a may be best, as the stradicator is very useful as is. So I am switching to a, b, c as my order. If the SW tests can be set up properly after option a is out the door, that could be the basis of a future upgrade.

Jim, Perhaps they could initially be based on the Core settings to find the best options for Filter, Trades, Entries, Exits, and then based on those initial best settings, refine with the Xprt variants to arrive at a usable Master Set. Those settings that produce the greatest common gain upon the most number of stocks (similar to what the Global Optimization setting is supposed to do in OT, except in greater quantity of variants over bull, bear, and flat markets). Those are my initial thoughts.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/15/2019 5:37 PM (#9404 - in reply to #9403)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Thanks guys

First - option C only takes about 20 min for me to do. It’s not Sbas, but rather just logical thinking. The idea is to give the newbie a starting point, not a recommended solution. The Help and vid training would emphasize this. Maybe an hour or two of fiddling with charts, as well, to assure that my intuition is not wholly off base.

Imho it’s mechanically better to include the Master input in the initial release even if it’s not very sexy. That way, if/when an in-depth SW based set of results are avail, it’s easy to enhance the existing input without forcing all users to modify existing function calls, focus lists, etc. Option A would not be friendly later on.

Re Kens comments on SW. it’s much more complex than one paragraph. Maybe 30 paragraphs would provide a decent outline but the equiv of 100 paragraphs would really be needed. I’ve done things like this before. It’s not easy. And I can’t afford the time now.

So, C it shall be. But hopefully y’all can offer some constructive comments re what the intuitive options should be for the C-Master settings. Or maybe how many is too many and how few is too few. Ken suggested that including four (of ten) method variants was too many. If so, what smaller subset, specifically, would you suggest.

Specifics are what I need, to whatever degree you have an opinion.

Thanks.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/16/2019 8:41 AM (#9405 - in reply to #9404)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Along the lines of option C ... that is, keeping the Master slider, and coming up with a rational subset of the three pattern sliders that are avail in the Core (and Xprt) versions, here is what I'd think would be a reasonably fast path, which would leverage the huge amount of work already done on the SBAS spreadsheets ...

Target:
Determine the best subset of patterns for four application-categories: Filters, Entries, Exits & Trades ("FEET"). Ideally it would be an equal # of each, and a fairly short list. There could be some overlap - ie the same pattern might be useful as a Filter and also as an Entry, etc.

First ... this should be focused solely on the sliders that would NOT be subject to further tweaking as a result of the tests. That is, leave the Expert sliders as is, and vary only the Gurus (plus a subset of the twelve CumV calc method options). By going this route, there will be no temptation to tweak the inner workings any further ... that is, my response time to the testing will be fast and final.

Second ... this should have fewer columns than the prior "step six" tests, and should not have a "step 8" followup. That will keep testing time low, and prevent exhaustion-related testing "cross-eyed" impacts. I think that 125 columns (compared to the ~500 used before) will do it.

Re the Method choices:
The two Gurus each have 5 positions (which vary their two sets of four subsidiary Experts). The CumV Method has 12 positions (-6 to +6) ... half of which are avail in Core. +6 is raw volume so it can be ignored. +1 to +5 are the four classic methods plus a "pure average" of the four. Since the chart changes to a lesser *but significant* degree as the slider moves through those five, compared to +1 to +5 changes for either of the Gurus (more or less, for different Symbols), the CumV Method input is sort of a "medium vernier", in between the Gurus and their subsidiary Experts. The way that the CumV method slider impacts the charts, afaict from cursory review, is hard to pin down in a "general" way. Therefore, it's hard to intuit which choices are best for Filters vs Trades vs Entries vs Exits. That's why I think it's important to "study" it a bit further, via SBAS.

Re the Symbols:
I think that three per person is still a good choice, to represent a spectrum and also to help minimize weariness. Probably it would be a good idea to use different symbols than have been SBAS'd before.

Re the Scores:
This is the thing that I'm not as certain of. Presuming y'all are willing to do this final limited SBAS round, I'd like your comments about them.

Option A: Use the original Lag/Chop/Dir categories
Advantages ... fully "understood" and familiar; only 3 questions so existing SS's don't need mod's
Disadvantage ... they don't "directly" address the four target categories - interpretation is req'd.

Option B: Use four specific Filter Entry Exit Trades categories
Advantages ... easy to sort thru results to conclude which to use for the Master slider
Disadvantage ... I'd need to spend 2-4 hours to modify the SS's to accommodate four scores

Option C: Use three Filter Entry Exit categories (like the prior BgnEnd tests)
Advantages ... minimal interpretation needed ... use combo of Entry+Exit scores to define Trades
Disadvantage ... possible that the "combo" interp might yield some oddball conclusions

Both B & C would utilize arbitrary zigzag plots (similar to the BgnEnd tests) to help normalize the SBAS perspectives. This is probably a good thing, since part of the difficulty that I encountered in consolidation of the results before came from what *seemed* to be very different "interpretations" of the Filter Entry Exit BgnEnd tests that I got back from S+K ... in a lot of cases, the conclusions seemed nearly opposite from S vs K, thus calling a lot of the test into question. I'll resurrect the definitions of the Filter Entry Exit scoring guidelines, and provide three (instead of just two) zigzag lines, to help avoid this.

What do you think? Are you willing to help out with this final SBAS set? Which of A,B,C do you prefer?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/16/2019 9:53 AM (#9406 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
Hi Jim,

I favor option B over A or C. While it would take a few extra hours to set up SS, once the SS and results are completed, it would be done, and interpretation is minimal. Option C uses 3 of the 4 areas of B anyways, so why not just add a fourth and get one more detail that eliminates most oddball conclusions. Option A requires further interpretation than should be necessary at this stage.

I would be willing to help in one more go for 125 columns on 3 stocks, as you suggest.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
SalimHira
Posted 3/16/2019 10:17 AM (#9407 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Veteran

Posts: 162
1002525
Location:
USA: MD, Columbia
Good Morn' Jim and Ken:

I concur with Ken, option "b" and willing to do the beta tests. Happy weekend.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/16/2019 11:30 AM (#9409 - in reply to #9407)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Thanks, guys!

Here are some new symbols (from my orig 30-syms culled from Nas-100) to work with, that reflect a spectrum of price behaviors during the past 6 months ...

WBA ... udfd
CTAS ... dfduf
MAR ... udfdfud later replaced with SPY due to bigjump issue
PCAR ... udufdud
NCLH ... ududuf
ADP ... udfduf
ALXN ... udfdu
LILAK ... ufdufdufuf

Each of you, please pick FOUR from the list that you feel represent a good spectrum of price action (ie mixes of "identifiable" up, dn, flat).

First come, first serve.

Then I'll review each set of four and cull one out ... unless you're willing to do four apiece (since I have to change the SS anyways - let me know).

suggestion: if you prefer to actually trade "extended" holds, or if you prefer "briefer" holds, then pick symbols that reflect that ... ie briefer => smaller-atr zigzags, extended => bigger-atr zigzags
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/16/2019 1:56 PM (#9418 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
There are no lines or dots on the band as previously discussed ... that has moved to TradeTrak per prior posted decision.

Here is a recap of the colors which might appear on the "Band" ... they are explained in detail in the following post.

1. bright color lime/pink can initiate a new wave ... for that, bright must pass input netBgnVot thresh
... (new wave only starts after input-required delay-bars since last wave end ... see next post)

2. once wave begun, subsequent brights mean net vote has increased since prior bar's net vote
3. once wave begun, medium grns/reds mean net vote has decreased since prior bar's net vote

4. during a wave, dark grn/red "Warn" means >=half of input oppEndVot thresh has been hit
5. during a wave, dark grn/red "Warn" can be created from the new med-cnt rules (or special sum rule)

6. wave end due to hitting input EndVot thresh, or due to bright bar in opp dir'n, has navyblue bar
7. wave end due to warn-count or 3-blue-strips rules, has black bar

8. between waves, medblue/purple bars show Alerts if NetVot >= half of BgnVot threshold
9. between waves during delay period, lime/pink bars converted to lightblue/violet Alert bars
... otherwise, between-waves is navy blue.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/18/2019 1:05 PM (#9424 - in reply to #9423)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
"Is A3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked?"

I think A3 is important, as from the other 2 tests Salim and I have done, there were many times that exits were well past the pivot point of the wave, and sometimes even making a winning trade to be break even, or even a loss. Having the ability to logically leave a stock whose volume pattern is "flatlining" on the indicator, while the stock itself is meandering slowly against the trade, is a valuable ability to control. While A1 and A2 do this too, being able to have some control over such a situation is very worthwhile. I understand the logic, and think it is a useful addition to A1 and A2. I do not see anything here that needs to be tweaked.

========

Is B3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)

Going through B3 b you have this sentence. "An extreme-conservative approach uses a threshold of 2, ie a warning after two mediums ... an aggressive approach uses a threshold of 5, ie a full exit after 5 mediums (without any intermediate bright bars). "
This is a little confusing in the logic because of how it is worded. You state for a conservative approach it is a warning after 2, while for an aggressive approach it is an exit after 5. The B section seems to be dealing with warnings more than exits. While I understand that a series of warnings can lead to an exit, and this seems to be what this sentence is indicating, maybe something like
oops ... my copy/paste error ... should say "a warning after 5" ... fixed

"and an aggressive approach after hitting a threshold of 5, it is no longer a warning but a full exit after 5 mediums (without any intermediate bright bars).",
or some such verbiage, would make it a bit clearer. The logic I think I understand, it's just the use of exits here instead of defining an exit using the term warnings causes a full stop in thinking.

"c. The medium-bar count *resets to half its threshold value* after any dark-color warning bar (gen'd by any B1-3 method) is encountered. That is, since the dark-color bar is "very weak", fewer ongoing medium-bars are required to generate an additional warning, than if a bright-bar had restarted the series at zero."

That makes sense. If a dark-color bar is "very weak", then the trend is finding significant drying up of interest in the stock direction. That should mean we should be ready to get out at a moment's notice, which the rule allows.

"d. The reset-to-half rule is intended to help accelerate the creation of a full-exit (using A3 rules), when an extended series of medium-bars appear but without enough opposite-votes to create many A1 or A2 warnings ... this is more likely to occur when the input EndVote is fairly high (such as for Filter applications). "

That also makes sense. Filters can be used for re-entries using other methods. B3 as a whole would make the indicator more sensitive to the fluctuating day by day patterns in the indicator, but get out of a trade when the going is good. I see no need to tweak this.

========

"Is C3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please) "

g. The intent of this set of rules is to allow for significant variation in the number of "delay" bars between waves, either reducing or increasing the actual time-gap based on the strength|weakness of the CVW bars during the gap. Depending on the part-D slider input, it's possible for there to be NO net-time-delay after the full-exit bar (if part-D slider is very aggressive, and if the full-exit bar was an opposite-direction bright bar, and if the bar just after the full exit was also bright opposite-direction) ... or it's possible that the time-delay between waves might be 2-3x as long as the simple C3c bar-count rule might imply, if there are a succession of flip-flop-direction Alerts.

Yes, it is the flip flops that kill a trading account. It looks like rules C3 c-f are to make sure the wave is really the start of a new wave, and not just a consolidation zone or Elliot wave abc flutter. That makes sense, and hopefully dollars. No suggestions here.

========

For D

"Do you understand the logic? Should the D2-4 mappings be tweaked? (specifics please) "

I understand the logic of the sliders, the only thing that will require some thought is the OFF switch is at opposite ends in different options, but that is to be expected if you go from Agrs2Cnsrv. It is fine the way it is, and makes logical sense. It probably should not be tweaked. Your explanation is good.
oops ... my mistake ... Slider=1 => off (ie never converts)

========

Reviewing your changes to A3ab.

The major difference to A3a seems to be:

"The count *restarts at zero* if a bright-color bar that meets the BgnVote threshold is encountered (not just a "strengthening bright" case)."

That makes sense, giving priority to the BgnVote, but resetting the count to A warnings.

Prior A3b said

"b. When the series-count of warnings hits a threshold that is derived from an input-slider (see part D below), the bar where the hit appears becomes a black full-exit bar. An extreme-conservative approach uses a threshold of 1, ie full exit on every warning ... an aggressive approach uses a threshold of 4, ie a full exit after 4 warnings (without any intermediate bright bars). "

New A3b says:

"b. If a "strengthening bright" bar appears (fairly likely since NetVote can easily increase after a Warning condition), then the current warning-vote count is *reduced by one* (min=half of warn>exit threshold). "

Ok. I see. The strengthening bright" bar is given its own logic in reducing the warning vote. Makes sense. No complaints there..

========

General Comments.

This seems to be an important slider to the whole functioning of the CVW system. The way you have described it is pretty clear. I think it is more helpful to you to do what you are doing, to give the rationale for what you are suggesting, and to ask specific questions for us to answer. It also focuses our attention on the matters that mean the most to you.
thanks for bearing with me!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/18/2019 1:25 PM (#9423 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Sorry about changing things mid-stream ... I've refined the rules for part A3ab (warnings > exits) ... all else the same ... also includes fixes from Ken's and Salim's responses

OK ... relaxing Sunday ... lemme try this again, with a different approach. Your feedback is valuable to me, and I just need to find a better way to explain things, and a more focused way of asking questions that might assist me. Please *ignore* the prior post about this, to prevent confusion. Hopefully this explanation *IS* clear enough to use in a Help manual for new-users. I've deleted my prior long post, and replies to it, since this restates it hopefully with much greater clarity.

There are three things which I'm addressing now, all of which are very important imho, esp re the "trading" mode of CVW (vs filtering). Two of them bear on timely exits, and one is intended to help prevent nuisance "chop" entries. I'll deal with them one at a time ... first, explaining the *intent* (which if you disagree, I'd like feedback on), then explaining the rules for implementation, *without* using detailed examples which seem to be more confusing than helpful. I'll try to ask *specific* questions that y'all can answer succinctly.

A. Converting "dark" band-color "warning" bars to "navy|black" band-color "full-exit":

... 1. The primary means of creating a (navy) full-exit is when the number of opposite-wave-direction-votes hits the threshold-value defined by the EndVote input. This is functional and settled.

... 2. Another way that a (navy) full-exit appears is when all three of the "strips" are navy ... that is, the net of 3 Slope votes = 0, net of 3 Stack votes = 0, and net of two CurBar votes = 0 ... each of these incorporates fuzzy logic, etc. This happens occasionally, when a wave peters out but never quite gets enough opposite votes to trigger A1. This is functional and settled.

... 3. NEW logic creates a full-exit shown as a black bar to clarify what caused it, but the Return value is the same as a navy-bar case. It allows a succession of dark-green/red warning bars (see part B for detail re how warnings appear) to trigger an exit. This is a more "normal" situation than A2, and often provides a usefully-earlier exit than A1 might.
... ... a. "Succession" means a series of dark-bar warnings, possibly separated by medium-color "weakening" bars which have no impact on the series-count. The count *restarts at zero* if a bright-color bar that meets the BgnVote threshold is encountered (not just a "strengthening bright" case).
... ... b. If a "strengthening bright" bar appears (fairly likely since NetVote can easily increase after a Warning condition), then the current warning-vote count is *reduced by one* (min=half of warn>exit threshold).
... ... c. When the series-count of warnings hits a threshold that is derived from an input-slider (see part D below), the bar where the hit appears becomes a black full-exit bar. An extreme-conservative approach uses a threshold of 1, ie full exit on every warning ... an aggressive approach uses a threshold of 4, ie a full exit after 4 warnings (without any intermediate bright bars).

Is A3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)


B. Converting "medium" band-color bars to "dark" color bars ... that is, converting in-wave "decreasing strength" bars to in-wave "warning" bars. The purpose of warning bars is to inform the user that adverse "votes" are getting stronger, and that a full end of the wave may be imminent.

... 1. The primary means of creating a (dark-green/red) warning is when the number of opposite-wave-direction-votes hits *half* of the threshold-value defined by the EndVote input. This is functional and settled.

... 2. Another way that a warning-bar is generated is when the three "strip" vote-categories are all "nearly" neutral ... that is, the net of 3 Slope votes is +1|0|-1, and the net of 3 Stack votes is +1|0|-1, and the sum of all seven votes is +1|0|-1 ... this echoes the logic of A2, with looser limits since it's creating a warning rather than a full exit. This happens reasonably often, during consolidation and mild-pullback situations. This is functional and settled.

... 3. NEW logic creates a dark-color warning bar, shown as a different shade (darkolivegreen/maroon - new feature not previously discussed) to clarify what caused it, but the Return value is the same as a dark-green/red case. It allows a succession of medium-green/red "weakening-strength" bars to trigger an exit. A "weakening" bar is one with a lower net-Vote than the prior bar (within an active Wave).
... ... a. "Succession" means a series of medium-bars. The count *restarts at zero* if a bright-color "strengthening" bar is encountered.
... ... b. When the series-count of medium-color bars hits a threshold that is derived from an input-slider (see part D below), the bar where the hit appears becomes a darkolivegreen/maroon "warning" bar. An extreme-conservative approach uses a threshold of 2, ie a warning after two mediums ... an aggressive approach uses a threshold of 5, ie a warning after 5 mediums (without any intermediate bright bars).
... ... c. The medium-bar count *resets to half its threshold value* after any dark-color warning bar (gen'd by any B1-3 method) is encountered. That is, since the dark-color bar is "very weak", fewer ongoing medium-bars are required to generate an additional warning, than if a bright-bar had restarted the series at zero.
... ... d. The reset-to-half rule is intended to help accelerate the creation of a full-exit (using A3 rules), when an extended series of medium-bars appear but without enough opposite-votes to create many A1 or A2 warnings ... this is more likely to occur when the input EndVote is fairly high (such as for Filter applications).

Is B3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)


C. Delaying new-Wave "bright-bar" inception (delay-logic explained in C3):

... 1. The BgnVote input-slider defines a net-sum-of-seven-Votes threshold that must be met, in order for a Wave to begin. This creates a "bright" bar (lime/pink). Once the Wave is active, the meaning of a subsequent bright bar changes ... lime/pink then indicates that the net-vote of the current bar is *stronger* than that of the prior bar (also true of wave-inception-bar, but disregards threshold). This is in-place and functional.

... 2. It's possible in some circumstances that a sudden direction-reversal might occur ... ie a bright bar of the opposite-direction *during* an active Wave. Since OT cannot mechanically process a "pure same-bar, single-Order reversal" via a TradePlan, and since this can sometimes (esp with low-threshold BgnVote inputs for Filters) be a single-bar blip without follow-thru in the new direction, CVW treats an opposite-color bright-bar during an active Wave as a full-exit (black color), ending that Wave but not on its own initiating a new Wave in the opposite direction. This is in-place and functional.

... 3. After a meaningful "move/trend", oft-times a period of Consolidation (calm or volatile) occurs, while the market rebalances or recovers from a major news item. The time required for this is nearly impossible to predict since the reason for the state-change is not conveyed by volume-price data. During this time, false/nuisance-chop "entry" signals are prone to appear from simple logic, which can quickly eat away both profits and trader-confidence. Therefore it's prudent to "intelligently delay" the start of a new Wave.
... ... a. An input-slider (see part D below) defines a required "delay Vote" threshold to be met, after a Wave ends, before a new one (in either direction) can ensue. This vote combines a count of actual bars with an adjustment for the strength and direction of those bars. Once the vote has passed the delay-Vote threshold in a given direction, any "bright" bar whose net-Vote meets the input BgnVote requirement will initiate a new Wave.
... ... b. Delay-votes between Waves are tracked separately for bullish and bearish cases ... that is, the Delay-vote for Bullish might be met, allowing a new Bullish wave to begin with a bright(lime) bar ... at a time when there is an insufficient Delay-vote to allow a Bearish wave to begin with a pink bar.
... ... c. Delay-votes are incremented by one for *both* Bull and Bear for every navy (ie neutral) bar *after* the full-exit bar gen'd by A1-3 rules ... that is, there is always at least one intermediate bar between the end of one Wave and the start of a new one (ref C2 TradePlan limitations).
... ... d. An "Alert" bar (blue=bull,purple=bear) occurs between-Waves, when the NetSum of seven Slope +Stack +CurBar votes hits half of the input BgnVote threshold, in a given direction. When an Alert bar appears, the Delay-vote *for that direction* is incremented by one (ie in addition to the normal C3c increment). Also, it *decreases* the Delay-vote *for the opposite direction* by one (ie nullifying the normal C3c increment). Alerts have Return values of 4=bear & 6=bull (5= navy|black full-exit or neutral).
... ... e. If the delay-vote has not yet passed its C3ab threshold, then any C1 "bright" bar is treated as a "strong Alert" rather than the beginning of a new Wave. This shows up as a an Alert with a somewhat lighter shade of blue|purple for bull|bear, but creates the same 6|4 Return value as a normal Alert. (This color alternative is a new feature not previously discussed).
... ... f. When a C3e "strong Alert" occurs, the Delay-vote *for that direction* is incremented by two (ie in addition to the normal C3c increment). Also, it *decreases* the Delay-vote *for the opposite direction* by two (ie net of this and normal C3c increment = decrement of one).
... ... g. The intent of this set of rules is to allow for significant variation in the number of "delay" bars between waves, either reducing or increasing the actual time-gap based on the strength|weakness of the CVW bars during the gap. Depending on the part-D slider input, it's possible for there to be NO net-time-delay after the full-exit bar (if part-D slider is very aggressive, and if the full-exit bar was an opposite-direction bright bar, and if the bar just after the full exit was also bright opposite-direction) ... or it's possible that the time-delay between waves might be 2-3x as long as the simple C3c bar-count rule might imply, if there are a succession of flip-flop-direction Alerts.

Is C3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)


D. New WavWEDcntAgrs2Cnsv Expert input Slider = 1-5 (controlled by VoteGuru):

1. This input defines the thresholds used by rules A,B,C. It also has negative-override option (Xprt version only of course) that allows the three thresholds for Warnings, Exits, and Delays ("WED") to be separately specified. "Aggressive" implies the user wants to minimize non-committal "neutral" zones, loosening requirements for Waves to start and making it more difficult for Waves to end.

2. It's harder for Waves to start, if the Delay-vote-threshold is higher. So, a slider=1 "aggressive" input sets low delay-vote thresholds, and slider=5 "conservative" input sets higher thresholds. The planned threshold-mapping is 2,3,4,5 delay-votes (slider=1=off = no required delay), as defined by C3 above.

3. It's harder for Waves to end, if the A3-Warning-count threshold is higher. So, a slider=1 "aggressive" input sets higher warning-count thresholds, and slider=5 "conservative" input sets lower thresholds. The planned threshold-mapping is slider 2-5 => 4,3,2,1 dark-color-warning-bar-votes (slider=1=off = warnings never "create" a full-exit), as defined by A3 above.

4. It's harder for Warnings to appear, if the B3-Medium-count threshold is higher. So, a slider=1 "aggressive" input sets higher medium-color-bar-count thresholds, and slider=5 "conservative" input sets lower thresholds. The planned threshold-mapping is slider 2-5= 5,4,3,2 medium-color-bar-votes (slider=1=off = medium-color bars never "create" a warning), as defined by B3 above.

Do you understand the logic? Should the D2-4 mappings be tweaked? (specifics please)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
SalimHira
Posted 3/18/2019 1:42 PM (#9425 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Veteran

Posts: 162
1002525
Location:
USA: MD, Columbia
Hi Jim,

This is a much better explanation than prior, as I had literally been pulling hair and been going at it all weekend, and just could not digest it.... As requested, here are my responses:

Is A3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)

Yes. I followed the logic upto A3a. I had to re-read A3b the last part in paranthesis "(without any intermediate bright bars)". I'd be assuming (1st thought) the counts would re-start, etc. without having read part D yet. (no need to explain, I'll figure it out in the DLL)
Figuring it out in the DLL is counter-productive ... please in future always note any points of confusion. Once DLL is out there, I don't want to have to make any avoidable fixes. That's what this thread is about.
Refer to A3a to understand this ... intermediate bright bars *restart* the count.


Is B3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)

Definitely. Re-visit couple times to understand. What is difference btwn olivegreen/maroon (3) and dark-olive/maroon (3b) ... could not follow logic around it.
No need for tweaks, imho.
both colors are the same darkolivegreen ... typo ... fixed

Is C3 important? Do you understand the logic? Should be tweaked? (specifics please)
Very important. Definitely, as much better explained.
Not in imho, as good as it can be :-). Very excited to see these features in action.

Do you understand the logic? Should the D2-4 mappings be tweaked? (specifics please)
Yes to the best of my abilities. To my knowledge, I don't see anything or reason to tweak any further.

My only question comes to mind: does this DLL make a very stable knowledge-base from aggressive to conservative trading base of Volume-related platform for studies that covers all aspects of relationship between Price & Volume.
I don't know what you mean by "make" a knowledge base. It does not store samples like GA does, to create new or adapt existing code dynamically.
No, it does not cover "all aspects" ... that's pretty open-ended. It uses the CumVol paradigm price-logic to assign directionality to Volume, and from that adjusted Volume it seeks to find places where "volume-supported" bullish and bearish trends begin and end.
It does NOT do a "price study" at all ... I've deliberately been careful to leave out any logic of that nature. MTV handles all that, while ignoring volume. So, CVW and MTV should ideally be used in conjunction with one another (as Filters, anyways).


Thanks.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/18/2019 2:13 PM (#9427 - in reply to #9425)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Thanks guys for your timely and thoughtful responses. I've modified both of your posts to provide answers in blue (please review), and as appropriate I've revised my original post to correct mistakes and misleading verbiage.

I've currently gotten the part A and B (and D) features in place. Part C is much tougher to code correctly, but I'm working on it.

Thanks again!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/18/2019 5:07 PM (#9428 - in reply to #9427)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
OK, need some help here ...

I realized that there is a flaw in my strengthening/weakening Band color scheme (& return-value). The concept is correct and useful, but it's missing a common third option ... I had no color to represent a case during an active Wave where the netVote sum for the current bar is the SAME as that of the prior bar (and it's not a Warning). If it is a Warning, that simply repeats for every bar that it's valid for.

But if it's just a "normal" bar during a Wave whose netVote sum is unchanged from the prior bar, then it needs a NEW color, to distinguish it from increasing or decreasing bars. This is particularly important re decreasing-bar (aka "Medium" color bar) distinctions, since Medium-decreasing bars are used to determine Warning bars (see part B of prior post).

I've added two new intermediate-green/red colors to the band output ... in-between bright and medium, with *relatively* clear shade/hue-differentiation. I'd previously added (see a couple of posts ago) black as a WaveEnd variant of navy, and royalblue/mediumorchid as BrightAlertDuringDelay variants of blue/purple, and darkred/darkolivegreen as MedColorCountWarning variants of firebrick/darkgreen.

The attached snap whould make this clear ... note that all the "new" color variants are negative number "cases" in the latter part of the select case list. I've provided brief one-line explanations of each, space permitting in my editor.

Also, I attached a snap of SPY that shows most of the various colors ... please don't spend a lot of time on it ... just there to give you a feel for how the hues/shades vary.

THE PROBLEM:

I've previously noted the fact that most of those negative-number color-variants are RETURNED with the same value as their positive counterparts, since they have the same net-logical reporting-impact as far as the calling-routine cares ... for example, it doesn't really matter *how* a Warning was generated (passing EndVote/2 threshold vs count of Medium bars) ... just that it *is* a Warning.

However, these most recent two new negative-number colors, denoting during a Wave that there is no change in the netVote from the prior bar, have no positive-number counterpart that I can use for Return values ... which MUST be single-digit.

The only "available" unused single-digit return value is zero. I can assign these "same-net" cases *both* to zero, but unfortunately that means the *direction* (bull/bear) of the current Wave is NOT shown, unlike all the other values except for 5 which is a neutral bar when no Wave is active.

THE QUESTIONS:

Should I use 0 as the Return value for both of these two Active-Wave no-netVote-change-since-last-non-Warning-bar cases?

Can you think of cases where a "unclear direction" 0-output in the Focus List (versus the direction-specific 1-9 values) will create confusion ... where you'd need to know the direction in order to make the correct decision?


Please note that you aren't allowed to look at the chart for clarification ... the Return values are also used by OmniScans etc which can't "see" the chart.
A calling-routine can "remember" what direction the Wave was headed, when some previous bar was nonzero (could be prior bar, or ten bars back, etc). I know how to handle that in the coding ... but its not simple to do in a Script that OScan or ColorCharts, etc might use.

(Band 16-color Map.png)



(Expanded Band Colors Example.png)



Attachments
Attachments Band 16-color Map.png (428KB - 0 downloads)
Attachments Expanded Band Colors Example.png (131KB - 0 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/18/2019 5:32 PM (#9429 - in reply to #9428)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
THE QUESTIONS:

Should I use 0 as the Return value for both of these two Active-Wave no-netVote-change-since-last-non-Warning-bar cases?

Can you think of cases where a "unclear direction" 0-output in the Focus List (versus the direction-specific 1-9 values) will create confusion ... where you'd need to know the direction in order to make the correct decision?

::::::

The only case I can think of is if this is automated with no user input. Then the (e.g., ATM) program will be unsure *at that point* whether it is bullish or bearish, not keeping track of prior bars returns. This might be the case with addon trades or partial exits if an Nbar type condition is met without at least some bar being +/- ive. Really, here, you are dealing with a +0 and a -0 situation, but have only 0. If a discretionary trade is being done, then there would be no problem. But I could foresee automated problems.

as you say,

"A calling-routine can "remember" what direction the Wave was headed, when some previous bar was nonzero (could be prior bar, or ten bars back, etc). I know how to handle that in the coding ... but its not simple to do in a Script that OScan or ColorCharts, etc might use."

YOU can do that, but generally N does not do that, imho. And as you say, coding that would not be trivial.

Even though you say,

"The only "available" unused single-digit return value is zero."

I notice from your code you have N0 and -N9 available. If you have no other plans for that -N9 slot, could you use that in conjunction with N0? Then it would be a simple matter of separating the +ive and zero from the -ive in a code.

That's the only suggestion I can give.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 5:59 AM (#9436 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Here is a simple cheat sheet for Band colors:

Greenish is an active Bull Wave
Reddish is an active Bear Wave
Blue/Black/Purplish is in-between Waves
Bright means strong, Dark means weak


PS ... I've cleaned up some prior posts that were developmental or had become incorrect or redundant ...
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 8:45 AM (#9439 - in reply to #9423)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
I've got all of the logic coded for the Med>Wrn, Wrn>End, and Bgn-Delay features described in post 9423. I've done enough visual testing (using the eight new symbols) to draw some conclusions ...

1. The Bgn-Delay logic is entirely useless. The only helpful thing that came out of that thinking was converting a bright-opposite-bar pure-reversal into an exit. I fiddled a lot with the delay logic, and found that:
1a. It has very little effect (for example, comparing a delay-value input of 1 to an input of 9 (!).
1b. The effect that it has is almost universally harmful ... it mainly just gives up $$ with late entries.
1c. Out of about 250 wave-tests, there were only maybe 2 or 3 where it slightly helped.
... so, I'm deleting that logic from the code (just keeping the reversal fix).
... part of the reason it didn't help is that other logic already prevents "chatter"

2. The Med>Wrn and Wrn>End logic is *consistently* helpful. It's been a little tricky to figure out what the slider settings should be, but it definitely tightens up the exits nicely in many cases.
... so, the new Expert slider will just tie to that logic, and will be named WavMWEcntAgrs2Cnsv

This also means that band-color cases -4 (royalblue) and -6 (mediumorchid) which had noted delayed-brights, are no longer in play ... shown in snap of post #9428.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 9:33 AM (#9440 - in reply to #9428)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Here is a consolidation of several prior (deleted) posts, with an elegant revised final solution.

The original problem was that a new "intermediate" color/state during an active Wave was needed ... when the netVote of the current bar exactly equals that of the prior bar. In that case, the Wave is neither "strengthening" nor "weakening". I created intermediate green/red shades for this, but since Return values from 1-9 are already all in use (and beneficial), I was stuck with returning Zero for *both* bull and bear "intermediate" cases.

It's very likely that people will want to sometimes use CVW with OScan or CC's or ATM, etc to simply identify whether the state is Bullish, Bearish, or in-between. The explanation below solves that problem nicely ...

Here's how OmniScan or ATM or ColorChart etc OScript-formula *might* be set up to distinguish a bullish from bearish from inactive-wave, taking into account all possible Return-states from 0-9 ...

All I need to do is to modify the return-value for the -2 input-request case. Currently CVW(...,-2) returns just the "t" duration as described earlier ... where "CVW" represents a "call" to the routine, per the HelpPanel #2 format ... and that "t" all by itself wasn't very helpful anyways.

So, I have altered the -2 Return-option to provide "dT.t", where "T" is the color value 0-9 (for grins), "t" is the duration, and "d" indicates the DIRECTION of the active Wave ... bear=1, bull=9, inactive=5. If a Focus List is sorted on this in descending order, all bullish will be grouped, then all in-between, then all bearish. Secondary tiers will relate to the strength of the wave.

Thus, the Direction of the Wave can ALWAYS be determined using a simple extraction formula from a SINGLE call to CVW:

Bullish Direction: int( CVW(...,-2) /10 ) = 9

Bearish Direction: int( CVW(...,-2) /10 ) = 1

Inactive Wave: int( CVW(...,-2) /10 ) = 5
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 11:25 AM (#9441 - in reply to #9440)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Simplification is GREAT!

When changing the -2 Return option to dT.t as described in the prior post, I realized that MANY of the 40 Xprt Return options are NOT necessary (nor are some of the Core options).

I've removed all the options that returned only a single digit ... for example P and p ... since the "P.p" option return-value can *easily* be parsed (OScript or OLang) into P using Int(...) and into p using Frac(...). See an example of how that works for the slightly more complex new "dT.t" -2 Return option, in the prior post.

This means that Xprt now has 18 Return options instead of 40. And Core now has 7 instead of 12.

Snaps show updates to the two Help Panels. NOTE: I've deactivated the other "wordy" Help panels since they are way way out of date. I've changed the note just under the HP#1 header to refer the user to a "Help Manual", which will be a PDF with plenty of info (and maybe a few snapshots).

Do you think that any info beyond what is shown below is *really* needed for popup Help, if a complete PDF Help Manual is separately provided?

(CVWeval Parameters.png)



(CVWeval HelpPanel-1.png)



(CVWeval HelpPanel-2.png)



Attachments
Attachments CVWeval Parameters.png (192KB - 0 downloads)
Attachments CVWeval HelpPanel-1.png (469KB - 0 downloads)
Attachments CVWeval HelpPanel-2.png (294KB - 0 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
SalimHira
Posted 3/19/2019 11:49 AM (#9442 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Veteran

Posts: 162
1002525
Location:
USA: MD, Columbia
Do you think that any info beyond what is shown below is *really* needed for popup Help, if a complete PDF Help Manual is separately provided?

Most likely not, as sufficient, imho.

The PDF Help manual idea is sound, as can be edited on the fly without having to re-compile DLL, and be replaced as needed - while popup Help manual more work involved, including restriction of content display.

For the pdf, a thought came into my mind about linking or providing location of the PDF file in OT directory where it may reside from your popup Help.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/19/2019 12:26 PM (#9444 - in reply to #9441)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
Hi Jim,

Great to see you came up with a simple solution to yesterday's problem, and at the same time found a simpler way to return variables useful to the user.

First, a general comment. I know this may be a "quick" screen shot. You have Master Set in a couple of spots, and PPMaster in at least one other spot. As my understanding from the other day is we were going to go with Master Set, this needs attention.

Also, I noticed in the Actual Inputs and Derivatives section, you refer to HelpPanel#4, so if you are limiting Help panels to 2, then this should be changed also.

"Do you think that any info beyond what is shown below is *really* needed for popup Help, if a complete PDF Help Manual is separately provided?"

Probably no other info required on HP1 or 2 if in the PDF.

I am sure you are already planning this, but in the PDF, be sure to highlight the usefulness of the return values in everyday discretionary trading, and (like in my case) using this for automated trading. Most "Non-techie" people will probably stick to return values -1 and -2, and possibly -17 and -18 on occasion. Some real world examples there would be very useful, as well as how to use the Int and Frac functions in OLang to get what they want for an Omniscript ( I know that is super basic, but some are afraid of coding). I am sure between the PDF and the introductory video you are planning, everything will be covered satisfactory.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 1:00 PM (#9445 - in reply to #9444)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Thanks for comments.

Salim: OT can "recognize" additional PDF Help manuals that are simply copied into the Manuals folder. However, putting it there would make the CVW installation process more complex. I currently already have a TT_Help-Manuals folder in the SDK, for such things. I'll consider adding an optional installation-step to the posted instructions, that users can do if they wish.

NOTE: please check the snapshots that I post more carefully ... that's a big part of what the "DevTeam" members are needed for. Prior to a couple of minutes ago, the snapshot for HP#1 was *obviously* incorrect ... the input-explanation line for WarnConvertAgrs2Cnsv wrapped to a second line, and referred to "BgnDelay" which I made specific note had been eliminated. The snapshot has since been fixed. Please help backstop me on obvious stuff like this. It will also help y'all to better understand what's going on. Thanks.

Ken: good catch re PPMaster and HP#4. I've fixed them in the code and will update the snapshot in a little while. I found just one instance of each ... if there are two of either, please let me know where.

I also have revised the param name ... it says "WarnConvert..." now instead of "WavMWEcnt..." ... hopefully much clearer. I'm currently fine-tuning the rules for the conversions ... this logic does a bang-up job of tightening the exits, without chopping things up too much. Hooray!

I'm still debating re some extra Help Panels ... I'll do a complete Help Manual, but some things might be useful to "look up quickly" on a popup Help Panel #3, such as the CumV Method options (twelve of them), and maaaybe a somewhat more detailed explanation of the Return options. It makes more sense to move the explanations for plot options to a PDF, since I can include snapshots there with arrows etc.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/19/2019 1:21 PM (#9446 - in reply to #9445)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
JimDean - 3/19/2019 11:00 AM

Ken: good catch re PPMaster and HP#4. I've fixed them in the code and will update the snapshot in a little while. I found just one instance of each ... if there are two of either, please let me know where.


No, looks like that got them all

I also have revised the param name ... it says "WarnConvert..." now instead of "WavMWEcnt..." ... hopefully much clearer. I'm currently fine-tuning the rules for the conversions ... this logic does a bang-up job of tightening the exits, without chopping things up too much. Hooray!


I agree that "WarnConvert..." is a much better name describing its functionality.

It makes more sense to move the explanations for plot options to a PDF, since I can include snapshots there with arrows etc.


I agree, the plot options are better in a pdf.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 1:44 PM (#9447 - in reply to #9445)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
OK ... prior snap is now updated for PPMaster and HP#4 glitches.

I'm working now on what the range should usefully be for the new WarnConvert expert input. Currently, as the input goes from 2-5, the #bars for Warn>End go from 4-1 and from Med>Warn go from 5-2. 1= off, ie no conversion.

My testing indicates that an input of 5 ... ie 1 Warn > End and 2 Med > Warn, seems to work very nicely ... it's good for situations where there are no "partial exits" supported by the Trade Plan ... all "warning" bars are essentially replaced by full-exits.

Testing also indicates the an input of 2 ... ie 4 Warns > End and 5 Meds > Warn, seems always to be too late ... I've not checked carefully but I suspect that the conversion doesn't really "kick in" very often, with that setting. So, I could afford to kill off this one.

The default input of 3 ... ie 3 Warns > End and 4 Meds > Warn, seems to help noticeably, and in comparison to an input of 5 (above), it prevents extended runs from being chopped in 2-3 parts during mild pullbacks or pauses. It allows for 2 successive Warns to remain as is ... which is nice if the Trade Plan (or manual trading) does support Partial Exits.

An input of 4 is what you'd expect ... sometimes like 4 and sometimes like 5. But it's not clearly in the "yay I want PXits" nor in the "I can't handle PXits" camp. So, maybe, it could be left out.

Sooooo ... I'm thinking of changing the slider from 1-5 range to a 1-3 range, where 1=off/no-convert, 2= same as current default (3, above PXit-case), and 3= same as current 5 (no-PXit case, above). Those choices are certainly easier to understand ... AND, a negative override allows user to spec anything from 0-9 separately for Med>Warn and Warn>End, so nothing is really "lost".

IF I DO THAT, then I need to rearrange the Guru mapping somewhat. The VoteGuru is from 1-5. It currently maps directly into the Fuzz Expert as 1-5. And it currently maps in a "staggered" fashion into the 1-3 BgnVote (=>4-6 votes) and 1-3 EndVote (=>4-2 votes) sliders, like this:
Guru: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
BgnV: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 => votes: 4, 4, 5, 5, 6
EndV: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 => votes: 4, 3, 3, 2, 2
... note the "stagger" so that varying the Guru provides different mixes of Bgn & End thresholds.

If I expand this idea to the WarnConvert slider, then since it's dealing with the End of the Wave, I'd want to stagger it's 3 choices versus the EndVote. And since the "1" Convert input means "off", it should probably be the one that is least-represented.
Warn: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 => W>E: N, 3, 3, 1, 1 & M>W: N, 4, 4, 2, 2
... to stagger that with EndV, I'd need to modify the EndV map to be:
EndV: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 => votes: 4, 4, 3, 3, 2 ... note that the default remains the same
... and if I do that, then since I want BgnV to stagger with EndV, I'd modify it to:
BgnV: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 => votes: 4, 5, 5, 6, 6
... which I sorta like better since imho, "6" is a tradeoff that reduces false blips, w/o too much lag

Do you follow this explanation? Do you think it's a good idea to cut the Warn slider from 5 choices to just 3? Do you think the revised "stagger" scheme is a good way to go? (Please, if you don't follow this, ask now rather than waiting for DLL)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/19/2019 2:02 PM (#9448 - in reply to #9447)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
JimDean - 3/19/2019 11:44 AM

Sooooo ... I'm thinking of changing the slider from 1-5 range to a 1-3 range, where 1=off/no-convert, 2= same as current default (3, above PXit-case), and 3= same as current 5 (no-PXit case, above). Those choices are certainly easier to understand ... AND, a negative override allows user to spec anything from 0-9 separately for Med>Warn and Warn>End, so nothing is really "lost".

IF I DO THAT, then I need to rearrange the Guru mapping somewhat. The VoteGuru is from 1-5. It currently maps directly into the Fuzz Expert as 1-5. And it currently maps in a "staggered" fashion into the 1-3 BgnVote (=>4-6 votes) and 1-3 EndVote (=>4-2 votes) sliders, like this:
Guru: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
BgnV: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 => votes: 4, 4, 5, 5, 6
EndV: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 => votes: 4, 3, 3, 2, 2
... note the "stagger" so that varying the Guru provides different mixes of Bgn & End thresholds.

If I expand this idea to the WarnConvert slider, then since it's dealing with the End of the Wave, I'd want to stagger it's 3 choices versus the EndVote. And since the "1" Convert input means "off", it should probably be the one that is least-represented.
Warn: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 => W>E: N, 3, 3, 1, 1 & M>W: N, 4, 4, 2, 2
... to stagger that with EndV, I'd need to modify the EndV map to be:
EndV: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 => votes: 4, 4, 3, 3, 2 ... note that the default remains the same
... and if I do that, then since I want BgnV to stagger with EndV, I'd modify it to:
BgnV: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 => votes: 4, 5, 5, 6, 6
... which I sorta like better since imho, "6" is a tradeoff that reduces false blips, w/o too much lag

Do you follow this explanation? Do you think it's a good idea to cut the Warn slider from 5 choices to just 3? Do you think the revised "stagger" scheme is a good way to go? (Please, if you don't follow this, ask now rather than waiting for DLL)


Hi Jim,

Yes, I follow the explanation. And based on your testing, it sounds like cutting from 5 to 3 makes sense for the Guru. And since the Xprt user can fine tune anyways on WarnConvert to override the Guru default, it sounds like a good option.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
SalimHira
Posted 3/19/2019 2:02 PM (#9449 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Veteran

Posts: 162
1002525
Location:
USA: MD, Columbia
Do you follow this explanation? Do you think it's a good idea to cut the Warn slider from 5 choices to just 3? Do you think the revised "stagger" scheme is a good way to go? (Please, if you don't follow this, ask now rather than waiting for DLL)

If you cut the Warn slider, can it still be manually input / over-ride by user ?

Please elaborate a little more how "stagger" work in real trading circumstances. Thanks.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 2:09 PM (#9450 - in reply to #9449)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Salim:
Please reread the post re your first question ... it explicitly states that you can override, and how.

Your second question is touched on in the post as well, re partial exit plans vs full exits ... and mentions of chop vs continuance, and mention (re BgnV) of nuisance vs a bit extra lag for one case.

(please, read more slowly and carefully ... the last three or so posts you've made have either had errors, or asked questions, that the post I made which occasioned them already addressed. I'm not very interested in "elaborating" if the stuff that I've already written is being skimmed over. Thanks)

Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 3:00 PM (#9451 - in reply to #9450)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
OK ... got a new one for y'all ...

We no longer have delay-logic between waves ... but we do still have Alerts. Which don't at present "do" anything (ie in terms of potentially executing an Order in a TP).

Sometimes (I've done almost no testing for this), there are multiple Alerts that fire well before the BgnVote threshold is met, which starts the Wave.

I'm thinking of adding some logic that will Convert a succession of common-direction Alerts (if not interrupted by opp-direction alerts) into a Wave Begin, even if the BgnVote is not met.

I'm providing a snapshot that illustrates what the benefits might be. The circles on the indicator show places where purple or blue alerts fire in succession (sometimes with navy in between) ... and the ovals above them on the price chart span the SAME bars, showing what an early Begin might mean.

This is pretty exciting ... but hey it's just ONE chart. I did not cherry pick ... I just happened to notice this and am now writing the post.

Upside is obvious ... earlier entries for trades or filters. Potential downsides:
1. could create false-entry chatter in consolidation
2. if EndVote threshold is low, the earlier Begin might get killed before trend is well established

I could hard-code it ... ie, after "A same-dir Alerts with no opp-dir Alerts intermixed, and <=B navy-bars in-between, then initiate a new Wave in the direction of the Alert".

Or, I could link it to the WarnConvert slider (=> WarnAlert slider) ... A & B could have three expert configurations ... maybe: 1=off, 2= 3 & 1, 3= 4 & 0 ??? ... of course the negative-override would allow A & B to be explicitly spec'd along with the currently M & W warning-related overrides.

What do you think? Specifically, can you imagine additional downsides? Do you think I should tie this in to the same new slider (no room for another slider)? What should A and B be?


(CVW A2 Alerts Example.png)



Attachments
Attachments CVW A2 Alerts Example.png (48KB - 0 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
KenWilsdon
Posted 3/19/2019 3:27 PM (#9452 - in reply to #9451)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Friend

Posts: 32
25
Location:
: ,
Hi Jim

This is great news!

False starts are obviously aa potential downside. Other than that, no.

Probably should be on the slider, with a value to change the # of alert bars, or non option.

All I have to go on to base A or B is the above chart, so I can’t help with that. From the chart, 2 bars looks about right.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/19/2019 3:48 PM (#9453 - in reply to #9452)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
Thanks, Ken. Do you mean 2 bars for A, for B, or both?

Here's the tougher question ... refer back to the post that discusses staggering with BgnV and EndV vs Warn ... I'm still in process of testing those variants.

But intuitively, if there are three Alert Convert options (AB1off, AB2, AB3) ... such as off, 3&1, 4&0 or maybe off, 5&2, 3&0 ... etc ...

Should the "likelihood" of the Alert Convert occuring "track with" the "likelihood" of the BgnVot requirement being met?

That is, if only 4 BgnVotes are needed, should the Guru-mapped Alert pattern be easier or harder to satisfy, versus the alternative Alert pattern that's Guru-paired with 6 BgnVotes being required?

The first way (4+ easier) would "underscore" the impact of the BgnVote setting
The second way (4+ harder) would "smooth" the impact of the BgnVote setting.

Should the likelihood of the Alert parallel the likelihood of an End occuring early, or should it be paired with an extended less-choppy End?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/20/2019 3:34 PM (#9455 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
CVW uses "standard" Cumulative Volume calculations. Bars with zero volume will essentially flatline the CumV calc during that time at whatever level it had before them. All slopes will quickly reach zero (horizontal), and stacking will relatively quickly move to zero ... so net Votes will be zero. This will cause any active Waves to exit fairly soon, and will prevent any new Waves from starting.

Once Volume reappears, unless it's huge, just a bar or two here or there is unlikely to be enough to cause slope & stack votes to appear since MA's require lots of bars.

So, my guess is that during times when a symbol is not actively traded ... ie when a signif percentage of bars have no volume or very little here and there ... then CVW will flatline.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JimDean
Posted 3/22/2019 12:43 AM (#9457 - in reply to #9178)
Subject: Cumulative Volume Indicator DISCUSSION



Owner/Admin

Posts: 3716
20001000500100100
Location:
USA: GA, Lawrenceville
... revision for upcoming SBAS testing, if we do it ...

Ken's symbols ... I replaced MAR with SPY, since MAR has a goofy bigjump>consolidation issue
SPY
PCAR
NCLH
CTAS

Salim's symbols ... they are more short-term-y and it's my guess that fits your usual M.O. pretty well.
WBA
ADP
ALXN
LILAK
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 3 [50 msgs/pg]
( E-mail a Link | Printer Version | Search Room )

Owner of site: Jim Dean -- Forum content is confidential, and may not be distributed without written permission.