Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

mitsubishi

Beyond Taylor

Recommended Posts

Mitsubishi doesn't seem to believe in the relevance of the Taylor count in trading the Taylor theory. Apparently, Mitsubishi has discovered that either the application of the Taylor theory without the count is more profitable than with the count or the application of the Taylor theory without the count is inessential to profitable trading.

 

But it could be that the apparent irrelevance of the Taylor count could be related to the way in which the Taylor count is applied: for example, whether the count is utilized mechanically or discretionarily.

 

On this point, it occurs to me that an assumption of mine had been that Taylor entered a trade based upon the Taylor Trading cycle mechanically but exited discretionarily. But, it could be that the Taylor entered discretionarily and exited discretionarily via utilizing the Taylor rules as "guides" to interpret whether an entry made sense or whether an exit made sense--and where--rather than as mechanical rules to apply each time a certain day in the cycle happened to happen. The "book method" substantiates this understanding, because Taylor could identify whether numbers "add up" based upon the "book method" to enter on a BUY DAY, for example, or whether not to enter on that particular BUY DAY. This type of choice determination seems to me to reflect more of a discretion concept rather than a mechanical concept of entries or trading.

 

I need to 'repeat' something too Sun...

 

Alternatively, one could ‘assume’ (as SunTrust just reminded us again) that Taylor entered trades discretionarily as a floortrader using real people as his “guides”. The "book method" was his best attempt at getting the ‘cycle’ out there to the public so that ‘anyone’ could get some utilization out of these emergent local cycles. Real people also gave him real signal on when to stand aside / not lean on it ‘mechanically’ / by rote[sp?].

 

The ‘cycle’ is still present and can be traded but to think it is still as collusive and as routine in getting 're-established' after signif. new 'dominant concerns' / mkt moving turbulence as it was then will lead to disappointment…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Alternatively, one could ‘assume’ (as SunTrust just reminded us again) that Taylor entered trades discretionarily as a floortrader using real people as his “guides”. The "book method" was his best attempt at getting the ‘cycle’ out there to the public so that ‘anyone’ could get some utilization out of these emergent local cycles. Real people also gave him real signal on when to stand aside / not lean on it ‘mechanically’ / by rote[sp?]...

 

The environmental information that a floor trader has in an exchange context could explain why it seems that ex floor traders trading off the floor typically mention, from what I have read, not being successful at trading on their own--presumably because significant environmental information is not there as relevant contextual signals for trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about environmental wachamacallits but he would know order flow, buy/sell imbalances, the big fish movements and maybe even a little inside dope.

 

All things off floor traders would not have access to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The environmental information that a floor trader has in an exchange context could explain why it seems that ex floor traders trading off the floor typically mention, from what I have read, not being successful at trading on their own--presumably because significant environmental information is not there as relevant contextual signals for trading.

 

Correct LS tripple T,

I worked there..on the Jhb Stock Exchange... open cry.... no computers.

Its called FRONT RUNNING.

I went deaf. Thats why I dont work there anymore. And its a massive disadvantage.

Sun Trader is correct, even wth computers , the broker still sees the ORDER FLOW.

Massive advantage.

But as my stock broker and golf partner for 40 years says.... dont get caught.!!

I will say no more

kind regards

bobc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re

dont get caught.!!

etc

maybe if I keep banging away at it, it will start sinking in for a few more...

 

addendum to my previous post and re "dont get caught.!!"

George lived in a time when "dont get caught.!!" was not such an issue... :)

 

...

As he "mentioned, way back, Taylor was a floor trader. He didn't trade it mechanically."

...

 

rephasing part of prevous post -the 'days' and the 'book' in the 'theory' were more the best construct he could up with at the time to write and publish a generalizable method than they were CENTRAL to the method...

 

and in the previous post, had

using real people as his “guides"

read

using 'real people' groups as his “guides"

then a few more might catch on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old man in the diner. Three bikers come in, one spits in the man's coffee and sits down, the second biker puts out a cigarette in the man's pie and sits down, third one dumps the man's plate on the counter and sits down. The old man calmly walks out of the diner. The three bikers were laughing and talking about he was not such a man and the waitress said he isn't much of a driver either, he just ran over three big motorcycles with his semi.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :haha: :haha: :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more thoughts on the problem of trading the Taylor theory mechanically.

 

Trading mechanically is simplistic. It is simplistic because it is an emphasis on the "how" rather than on the "why." It is "concrete" rather than "conceptual."

 

It is "concrete" because it is "formulaic": a set of concrete steps to implement as "rules."

 

But, the problem is that "application" of the "concrete" "formula" does not create meaningful "results" consistently. It can seem "accidental" or "by chance" and it can be counter productive and counter profitable.

 

Hence being conceptual is the solution because the emphasis in a concept is the "why" and not simply the "how."

 

The Taylor Trading cycle is a "how" and a "why." Thus, Taylor emphasized the explaining of the "why" in the explaining of the "how." BUT, Taylor apparently DID NOT EXPLAIN THE "TOTALITY" OF THE "WHY" but the "basic" "why" of the "formula" or "cycle."

 

This because the "totality" of the "why" is implied: the other "explanations" or the "whys" are embedded or "implied" in the extrinsic methods of analysis and trading.

 

The application of these other "extrinsic methods" together with the "formulaic" rules and explanations for that "formula" or "cycle" by Taylor represents the foundation for the discretionary approach to trading vs. the simplistically mechanical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A basic premise of the Taylor theory is that the price action works within the Taylor Trading cycle and a particular type of Taylor day. But within and external to each Taylor day, there are other "patterns" from other theories operating at all times. Some of these patterns work within the "frame" set up by the Taylor theory. But other patterns--the broader context elements--control or significantly influence the "frame" utilized by the Taylor theory.

 

It seems that a Taylor trader has to learn how to work with both sets of "extrinsic" "patterns" vis a vis the Taylor Trading day or the broader Taylor Trading cycle to be more effective and in control of the discretionary trading process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of speculating and pontificating about the Taylor Book Method why not invest in an actual book on the subject.

 

I recommend Sniper Trading by George Angell. He brought it up to date, well up to 2002 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, 10.4.13, was a BUY DAY by my continuous count of the Complete Session of the ES. Yesterday had been a SHORT SELL DAY. The bullish price action today reflected the emphasis on the buying by the institutional traders. And the deep collapse yesterday reflected the emphasis on the short selling by the institutional traders.

 

By Patuca's continuous count, however, today represented a SHORT SELL DAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The broadening of the sample makes sense and the figures above are highly suggestive.

 

There could be, however, two complications in the amassing of the statistics for the "close" "rule" and "the printing first" "rule":

 

1. the method by which a person is to determine what constitutes a negative close vs. a positive close vs. a neutral close...

 

The concept of a close is interesting to consider. It seems to me that there are three methods of evaluating a close as being positive or negative:

 

A. the closing price is higher or non higher than the opening price

 

B. the closing price is higher or non higher than the close of the previous day or period

 

C. the closing price is above or non above the 50% level for the range of that particular intra day--for example, if the close is in proximity to the high of that intra day or the non high of that intra day

 

As I understand it, Taylor worked with "C" for the determination of the type of close that happened for that day.

 

I don't know if Taylor had pondered "A" and "B" as methods for evaluating the daily close and to what extent "A" or "B" could be relevant to the Taylor Trading theory vs. "C" and, if Taylor had done that, what the reasoning might be for selecting "C" over the other two close determination methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today, 10.4.13, was a BUY DAY by my continuous count of the Complete Session of the ES. Yesterday had been a SHORT SELL DAY. The bullish price action today reflected the emphasis on the buying by the institutional traders. And the deep collapse yesterday reflected the emphasis on the short selling by the institutional traders.

 

By Patuca's continuous count, however, today represented a SHORT SELL DAY.

 

Well,if by your continuous count you can label the days so they fit with the market more often than not..bingo.But if not,then what?

I bet Patuca made money today (if he wasn't fishing).Would it come down to cycle/recycle or something extrinsic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,if by your continuous count you can label the days so they fit with the market more often than not..bingo.But if not,then what?

I bet Patuca made money today (if he wasn't fishing).Would it come down to cycle/recycle or something extrinsic?

 

If there are multiple theories to explain something, empirical results could be suggestive to overcome that impasse.

 

A complication in working with "empirical results," however, is the tension between theory and application that is alluded to by Mitsubishi's comment: whether the results stem from "a" theory per se or whether the results stem from "an" application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even close .

 

"A. the closing price is higher or non higher than the opening price

 

B. the closing price is higher or non higher than the close of the previous day or period

 

C. the closing price is above or non above the 50% level for the range of that particular intra day--for example, if the close is in proximity to the high of that intra day or the non high of that intra day"

 

 

ST has a point. It seems that things are more complicated than that.

 

First of all, some more contemplation of "A" and "B" suggests that the distinction between "A" and "B" might not be significant vis a vis the Taylor theory.

 

Secondly, "C" could be more complicated than what it seems, because, for example, it seems that the broader context or trend could be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On any day the market closes up almost always the low is made first.On any day the market is down the high is most often made first...I would prefer to buy a potential higher low if the first move is down but still above the prev low rather than buy a dip later on in a strong up trending day-That would be a reasonable ploy to buy that dip BUT that dip will not be the daily low,the low would have been the open (in the case of a gap up and go day) or early in the session where the market made an early low but reversed up for the remainder of the day...if the market has made a strong run over several days attempting to buy a higher low early at this point carries more risk if the prev low is far away in time and price.

Buying a higher low carries less risk if you are doing that after what you perceive as a selling/shorting cycle has ended and a new rally is starting..." by Mitsubish

 

This "first move down" or "early in the session where the market made an early low" seems to be accounted for by some as STOP HUNTING by the institutional traders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Do away with labels. Think in terms of concepts. The market being engineered over a 3 day period. That is what one wants to measure. The labels could be anything. The quantification of the movements is what is important. However, the problem shows up when we apply Taylors rules without his labels. For instance, he has specific rules for buy day. Same for the other days. But there are ways around this problem. There are other solutions too one just has to think them through.

 

Silver is correct on the amplitude of the moves (cycles) if 2 people carry different books. In the end I can tell you by experience it will all work out...

 

 

 

It seems that WHY? could have perceptively addressed the relevance of the Taylor count earlier in this Taylor thread: the count could be relevant only if the "amplitude of the moves" mattered to an intra day trader.

 

My understanding of WHY?'s point is that the basic Taylor rules apply meaningfully to each Taylor day, whether a BUY DAY, a SELL DAY or a SHORT SELL DAY, at a core level for an intra day trade. This is because, presumably, the basic Taylor rules account for the core moves equivalently for each day: the core move, therefore, could represent 100% of one Taylor type day but, for example, 80% of a different Taylor type day. This is because that 80% day could be constituted by an 80% of the total day's core move + 20% amplitude lodged within a particular count. But capturing 100% of the core move, which equals 80% of the total day's move, could be sufficient for an intra day trader, even if 20% of the amplitude is not captured for that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..."My impression is that things are still basically the same. However, in modern times at any given time 2-4 more ‘off-floor’ timeframe ‘crowds’ are independently involved in engineering their own ‘campaigns’ than in his day…"

 

True and humans respond to the market in much the same way they did 50 years ago. Hence the same patterns tend to repeat...

 

It seems that Taylor identified an enduring or perennial cycle of 3 days and created a theory out of that. My understanding had been that this is simply an "empirical" "pattern" identified by Taylor and is "universal" or "fundamental" in that sense. But, WHY? lodges the explanation within human psychology: i.e., human nature.

Edited by LSTTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mechanical vs. the discretionary approach to Taylor trading reflects it seems to me something interesting about the Taylor Trading cycle: the Taylor Trading cycle can be viewed as an application or an interpretation of a synthesized set of concepts by Taylor. It represents a somewhat concretized or formulaic "approximation" by Taylor of what could work as a trading method based upon a synthesis of concepts or principles BEHIND the "rules." But these concepts are themselves generalizations and, because there are numerous exceptions to these general concepts, the Taylor Trading cycle cannot be a precise instrument for trading unless the discretionary trader is familiar with the numerous concepts behind the Taylor rules and the different ways in which those concepts are applied in varying empirical circumstances to create a higher level of precision and, therefore, consistency in the utilization of the Taylor Trading rules and cycle.

Edited by LSTTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that WHY? could have perceptively addressed the relevance of the Taylor count earlier in this Taylor thread: the count could be relevant only if the "amplitude of the moves" mattered to an intra day trader.

 

My understanding of WHY?'s point is that the basic Taylor rules apply meaningfully to each Taylor day, whether a BUY DAY, a SELL DAY or a SHORT SELL DAY, at a core level for an intra day trade. This is because, presumably, the basic Taylor rules account for the core moves equivalently for each day: the core move, therefore, could represent 100% of one Taylor type day but, for example, 80% of a different Taylor type day. This is because that 80% day could be constituted by an 80% of the total day's core move + 20% amplitude lodged within a particular count. But capturing 100% of the core move, which equals 80% of the total day's move, could be sufficient for an intra day trader, even if 20% of the amplitude is not captured for that day.

 

A person could add to the above intersection + amplitude hypothesis.

 

The "amplitude" could be understood as representing more of a likelihood on a certain type day for the price to behave in a certain way more than the other type days. Taylor, for example, mentions that a BUY DAY should behave differently than a SELL DAY and a SELL DAY differently than a SHORT SELL DAY and a SHORT SELL DAY differently than a BUY DAY. If that difference in behavior happens, the amplitude in the moves should show up. But, there are times when the BUY DAY, the SELL DAY and the SHORT SELL DAY behave identically. If that happens, the intersection among the days is what shows up vs. the amplitude for a move and the application of the Taylor rules does not show a difference among the different types of days in that case. But on the days that the amplitude shows up, the severity of the amplitude could matter deeply to a trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting concept of trading is that no matter what method a trader utilizes for trading, whether the Taylor Trading cycle, the Elliott waves, the Fibonacci numbers, etc."anything can happen."

 

This suggests position sizing, trade management (i.e, STOPS, etc.), etc. could be more important for the viability of a trading account than any particular method for the identification of demand and supply for entries and targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting concept of trading is that no matter what method a trader utilizes for trading, whether the Taylor Trading cycle, the Elliott waves, the Fibonacci numbers, etc."anything can happen."

 

This suggests position sizing, trade management (i.e, STOPS, etc.), etc. could be more important for the viability of a trading account than any particular method for the identification of demand and supply for entries and targets.

 

It's a cruel trick to find that after years spent in the quest for the holy grail the trader is finally forced to confront the most mundane,obvious,boring realisations regarding going beyond anything.

If one's end of term report is repeatedly marked "could do better" the student must aim to receive one marked "has made progress"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways this is among the best threads ever on TL ... and

 

While I do like posts 847 and 848 of this thread, it is important to note that both those posts are about 'Pre ____' , not ‘Beyond ______'

 

and… however necessary (and lacking for most) 'pre' is

Reverting to pre will not take you beyond.

 

Suggestion: A much more fitting way to bring the thread to a finish would be for each of the posters who were active on the thread to contribute a 3 – 4 sentence summary of what Beyond Taylor means to them at this point in time…

 

tia

 

zdo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,if by your continuous count you can label the days so they fit with the market more often than not..bingo....

 

I have just re studied the Taylor text and it seems to me that continuity, re cycling, etc. of the Taylor count could be fundamentally non consequential for intra day trading and even for swing trading if the Taylor rules are worked with "sensibly" and "conceptually." That is, in theory, at this point in my understanding.

 

The Taylor rules--as "concepts"--are the "main dish" and the Taylor count is the "dessert." Hence, Mitsubishi's admonishment against the "continuous count" or even a count at all as "non essential" could have some basis in the Taylor theory: a meal can be had without dessert but not without the main dish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Is it possible to use AND and OR for optimization in Amibroker? Lets look at this line of code: U = Optimize(1, 0, 1, 1);  Buy = (C > MA(C,20) ) == U;  //condition is True if U = 1 and False if U = 0 In effect I can flip ">" operator to "<=" by using numerical values of 0 for False and 1 for True in optimization. Is there a way to do the same with AND and OR? Lets look at this line of code: Buy = ROC(C,5) > 1 OR ROC(C,1) < -2;  and this one: Buy = ROC(C,5) > 1 AND ROC(C,1) < -2;  Is there a way to run an optimization on the following so it is an equivalent to switching between AND and OR: OPERATOR = Optimize(AND, AND, OR, ?);  Buy = ROC(C,5) > 1 OPERATOR ROC(C,1) < -2;  Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    • Sure just to name a few - Plus500, XM.com, Forex.com
    • Being regulated by the CySEC! Are you serious? 🤣 Ok. Let's get serious. Only the FCA is what we can call a real regulator, so could you please name just ONE crypto broker regulated by the FCA? And I said REGULATED and not REGISTERED. You know what I mean. 😜
    • ) I want to share my trading experience with Fiatotrade . Two years ago I started a small amount, received a little profit and withdrew the entire amount without any problems. Then after some time he threw quite a large amount and began to trade in large volumes. Problems began in the form of slippages and requotes, as it turned out later - this is due to the fact that the type of account was Standard . In general, I decided to withdraw the entire amount again, they asked me to confirm the passport data (probably because the amount was large). Confirmed - withdrawn in 5 minutes. Then I took a break again and a year ago I decided again to trade with this broker. Again I started a large amount, but already on the ECN account. There was no requote, and with slippings almost without problems. In general, trade is on its own, and profit is also available and derived. Therefore, I remain with this broker for now, because I checked it on my own skin.
    • Does anyone have ValueChart indicator for NT8?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.