Analysis and Trading based on Envelopes, Waves, Cycles

Quoting OAPDave
{quote} Parisboy, you are up there with the best of the best, so can I ask the question about the Murrey so called Start of the new 256 day Cycle ( October ?) is it real and important or just a marketing ploy
Dave

hereunder some thoughts of Tim Kruzel on Time and on the Starting Date

Time

The term "square in time" has been used liberally throughout the prior discussions without any specific statements regarding time. All that has been addressed so far is the vertical price dimension of the square in time. This is justified since the process of identifying the MML's and MMI's requires a little more effort than the divisions of time.

The fact that less discussion has been devoted to the time dimension should not be interpreted to mean that the time dimension is any less important than the price dimension.

Time and price are equally important.

Time is divided up in a very reasonable (and practical manner). The year is broken into quarters of 64 trading days each. Note that 64 is a power of 2 (i.e. (2 x 2 x 2) x (2 x 2 x 2) = 8 x 8 = 64). An interval of 64 can easily be subdivided into half intervals. Note that 8 (the number of vertical intervals in the square in time) is also a power of 2 (i.e. (2 x 2 x 2) = 8).

Thus, the square in time can easily be scaled in both the price (vertical) and the time (horizontal) dimensions simply by multiplying or dividing by 2 (very clever).

Consider also that a year consists of four quarters. Four is also a power of 2. So, a square in time based upon a year long scale can also easily be subdivided.

The ability to subdivide the square in time gives the square in time the ability to evolve as an entity trades through time. The square in time acts as a reference frame (coordinate system) that can adjust itself as needed. As an entity reaches new high or low prices, the reference frame can be expanded by doubling the square in both the price and time dimensions. Alternatively, if one wishes to look at the price of an entity during some short time frame one can simply halve the square in both the price and time dimensions (resulting in a quarter square). This halving and doubling may be carried out to whatever degree is practical (i.e. Practical within the limits of how much price and time data may be subdivided. A daily chart can't be subdivided into intraday prices or time). Refer back to the description of the rectangular fractal at the beginning of this paper.

The argument for breaking the year into quarters intuitively makes sense. The business world (including mutual fund managers) is measured on a quarterly basis. Each of the four quarters roughly correspond to the four seasons of the year which drive weather and agriculture (as well as commodity contracts). Clearly humans are geared to a quarterly cycle.

Murrey resets the time = 0 point on an annual basis. This is done the first week of October and corresponds to the day of the U.S. Treasury's monthly and quarterly bond auctions (This year 10/8/97). Once the time = 0 point is set one may simply count off daily increments of 4, 8, 16, 32, or 64 days relative to the time = 0 point to set the desired square in time (or 256 days if one wants an annual chart).

At this point one should realize that specifying a time interval is critical to setting up the square in time. In the above examples that were used to illustrate the selection of MML's and MMI's the time frame was implied. All that was specified in the examples was the price range that the entity traded at. Naturally, one has to ask the question, "The price range it traded at during what time frame?". One will probably want to set up the square in time for annual and quarterly time frames. The quarterly square in time will probably be subdivided into a 16 day time frame for intermediate term trading.

One would need intraday data to set up an intraday square in time. The time coordinate of an intraday chart is simply divided into 4 or 8 uniform intervals. The intraday MML's and MMI's are then set up using the intraday trading range. If one is looking at a weekly chart then a quarter should consist of 13 weeks.

Another key use of the time dimension is estimating when a trend in price will reverse itself. The horizontal MML's of a square in time represent points of support and resistance in the price dimension. The vertical lines that divide the square in the time dimension represent likely trend reversal points. My own personal studies, done on the DJIA, showed that on average the DJIA has a turning point every 2.5 days. Since we know that the market does not move in a straight line we would expect to see frequent trend reversals.

Murrey uses the vertical time lines (1/8 th lines) in the square to signal trend reversals.

Quoting OAPDave
{quote} Parisboy, you are up there with the best of the best, so can I ask the question about the Murrey so called Start of the new 256 day Cycle ( October ?) is it real and important or just a marketing ploy

Dave , for your information an old message from a former Murrey discussion group


If you are concerned about price levels they are unaffected by the start date. As for the time lines, you might be interested in the following which are portions of two messages from Bonnie Hill (her website is http://home.flash.net/~blhill/pages/murrey.html).

Bill

I need to give a little history of "Murrey Math".

"Murrey Math" is based on a course written by W D Gann. When Murrey put his mother into a rest home, he found the course when he cleaned out her house. He used this material as the basis for "Murrey Math".

In the early days, Murrey gave Gann credit for the material. As the years passed, Murrey has "forgotten" where the ideas came from :-) There are several ideas in the course which Murrey did NOT understand correctly. That is why some of the techniques seem great and some seem a little "strange".

The starting point for the 4th quarter is actually the midpoint between the Earth's perihelion and aphelion. This date is approximately October 2nd.
The date can be shifted due to trading days or lunar aspects (Full/New Moons, etc) which occur close to this date.

Murrey's "birthday, etc" is pure nonsense. If you have a copy of this particular Gann course you know EXACTLY where "Murrey Math" came from. I have "Murrey Math" charts which I drew over 10 years before I ever saw the "Murrey Math" manual :-)

Best wishes,

Bonnie Lee Hill

Dave,

you have to note that Bonnie Hill :

- does NOT indicate which "particular" Gann Course it is, where to find or buy it
- does NOT explain WHY the "starting point" should be at the beginning of October
- does not explain what are the "several ideas in the course which Murrey did NOT understand correctly."

Quoting OAPDave
{quote} Parisboy, you are up there with the best of the best, so can I ask the question about the Murrey so called Start of the new 256 day Cycle ( October ?) is it real and important or just a marketing ploy
Dave,

another post of my archives from a guy who obviously gave at that time a lot of thoughts on the subject "Start of the New Cycle"


I think the start date is important. FOM is just giving out some flack since nobody is recognizing the true elements of the discussion. Of course, if the start date is wrong, then it won't be very important, obviously. But, get it right and the results are quite impressive, enough so that it is worth the effort to set it
properly.

First, to counteract some of the FOM sarcasm recently: (FOM) was the abbreviation of a poster named Friend of Murrey, very aggressive towards the others and always bragging on how Murrey was a genius. Most guys suspected it was Murrey himself)

I. The Start Date DOES RESET every year in October.

II. The Start DATE IS IMPORTANT.

Check how many significant turns occur within +/-4 trading days of the start of any of the 64 bar frames.

III. It is not related to the first frost or Murrey's birthday

Although both may be close to the date, this is just fluff to conceal the true origin of the date.

I have been testing a proposed start date algorithm for a little while, and I think that it would explain Murrey's start dates for the most part. It may not be perfect, but certainly seems close. It also seems to agree with most of Murrey's nuggets of wisdom along the way.

Murrey Points to Keep in Mind:

1. It is related to the harvest moon somehow.

2. It is related to multiples of 4 trading days.

3. It should be in the first week of October each year.

4. Once set, the count remains fixed until the next October.

Note, Point #4 was the fooler because some earlier versions of Murrey's EOD program had some bugs related to the date which caused it to slide up or back 1 or 2 days at times, which clouded this issue, even though Murrey would state that the count did not adjust mid-year. But, close examination of Murrey's Trader's World articles shows that this date should not be changed once set until the next October.


Proposed Start Date Algorithm:

1. Take the first full moon which is on or after Sep 21 as the HARVEST MOON and denote that date as the anchor for the count.

2. If the full moon occurs earlier than 12:45 ET, then back up 1 calendar day and call that the anchor.

Note, that +8 trading days from this anchor date must be October 1st or later. If the September full moon is not within +8 trading days, you must switch to the October full moon as the anchor.

3. In cases of weekend anchor dates, ALWAYS round BACK not FORWARDS.

The trading frame dates tend to creep larger over the year, since there are only 252-253 trading days a year, but 256 trading dates in 4 64-bar frames. So, we would always want to round back, not forwards, since the tendency would be to move farther ahead of the actual year, not behind it.

3. If the anchor date is in September, then count either +4 trading days or +8 trading days until reaching a date in October. This date then becomes the year's start date.

4. If the anchor date is in October, then count either 0 trading days, -4 trading days, or -8 trading days until reaching a date which is October 7 or earlier.

Examples:

1. 2002-2003 Start Date:

Full Moon = Sept. 21 09:59 ET. Because it is before 12:45 ET, back up 1 calendar day. Anchor Date = Sept. 20, 2002. Add 8 trading days = Oct. 2, 2002 ( Murrey Math Start Date ).

2. 2001-2002 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 2 09:49 ET. Because it is before 12:45 ET, back up 1 calendar day. Anchor Date = Oct. 1, 2001. ( Murrey Math Start Date ).

3. 2000-2001 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 13 04:53 ET. Because it is before 12:45 ET, back up 1 calendar day. Anchor Date = Oct. 12, 2000.

Subtract 4 trading days = Oct. 6, 2000.

** Note, Murrey's start date = Oct. 9, 2000 which is only different by 1 trading day and results from the rounding rule. Backtesting shows that Oct. 6, 2000 shows somewhat better turns, however, so I've stuck with the rounding rules as shown.

4. 1999-2000 Start Date:

Full Moon = Sept. 25, 1999 06:51 ET. Because it is before 12:45 ET, back up 1 calendar day. Anchor Date = Sept. 24, 1999.

Add 8 trading days = Oct. 6, 1999 ( Murrey Math Start Date. )

5. 1998-1999 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 5, 1998 16:12 ET. No rounding needed. Anchor Date = Oct. 5, 1998 ( Murrey Math Start Date. )

6. 1997-1998 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 15, 1997 23:46 ET. No rounding needed. Anchor Date = Oct. 15, 1997 ( Murrey Math Start Date. ) Subtract 8 trading days = Oct. 3, 1997 ( Murrey Math Start Date. )

7. 1996-1997 Start Date:

Full Moon = Sept. 26, 1996 22:51 ET. No rounding needed. Anchor Date = Sept. 26, 1996 Add 4 trading days = Oct. 2, 1996 ( Murrey Math Start Date. )

8. 1995-1996 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 8, 1995 11:52 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 7, 1995 ( Saturday ). Back to trading day = Oct. 6, 1995 ( Murrey Math Start Date. )

9. 1994-1995 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 19, 1994 08:18 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 18, 1994 Subtract 8 trading days = Oct. 6, 1994

** Note, Murrey Math Start Date = Oct. 7, 1994 (rounding difference)

10. 1993-1994 Start Date:

Full Moon = Sept. 30, 1993 14:54 ET. Anchor Date = Sept. 30, 1993 Add 4 trading days = Oct. 6, 1993

11. 1992-1993 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 11, 1992 14:03 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 9, 1992 ( nearest trading day ). Subtract 4 trading days = Oct. 5, 1992

12. 1991-1992 Start Date:

Full Moon = Sept. 23, 1991 18:40 ET. Anchor Date = Sept. 23, 1991 Add 8 trading days = Oct. 3, 1991

13. 1990-1991 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 4, 1990 08:02 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 3, 1990 Start Date = Oct. 3, 1990

14. 1989-1990 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 14, 1989 16:32 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 13, 1989 Subtract 8 trading days = Oct. 3, 1989

15. 1988-1989 Start Date:

Full Moon = Sept. 25, 1988 15:07 ET. Anchor Date = Sept. 23, 1988 Add 8 trading days = Oct. 5, 1988

16. 1987-1988 Start Date:

Full Moon = Oct. 7, 1987 00:12 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 6, 1987 Start Date = Oct. 6, 1987

FUTURE START DATES:

1. 2003 Start Date

Full Moon = Oct. 10, 2003 03:27 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 9, 2003 Subtract 4 trading days = Oct. 3, 2003.

2. 2004 Start Date

Full Moon = Sept. 28, 2004 09:09 ET. Anchor Date = Sept. 27, 2004 Add 4 trading days = Oct. 1, 2004

3. 2005 Start Date

Full Moon = Oct. 17, 2005 08:14 ET. Anchor Date = Oct. 14, 2005 Subtract 8 trading days = Oct. 4, 2005.

So, what do you think FOM? Pretty close, or all wet...

PS 32-bar 2/8 time date coming Monday, expect stall of up move for 1-2 days here. Good Trading, Mike

All "Murrey's Maths" developments (at least most of them) are based on Tim Kruzel notes widely available on the net..

Murrrey's book is rarely quoted by users. I assume that very few people have read it or own it.

The following post from a developper/programmer (2002) is for your information :

I had direct interchanges with Tim some 18 months to 2 years ago and noted or recall the following:

1) his widely disseminated notes were a rough draft; Tim Kruzel never intended for them to "get out" - that just kind of happened after he posted his e-mail to THM.

2) The process defined in Tim Kruzel's notes was a pretty good start; but is by no means the "right way" and (as Kruzel says) there are fundamental flaws.

3) Tim Kruzel AMM.EXE program uses later revision(s) of the algorithm. His metastock code is somewhere between the "notes" and "AMM".

4) Tim Kruzel's work past AMM.EXE; never made public or put into a program except for his own use.

5) Tim Kruzel doesn't trade exclusively on Murrey Math.

6) XChartMM is not "Kruzel's notes" applied graphically; I too started with his notes but quickly found they were not right (as Tim confirmed). Then I started to work, got a clue or two from Tim, and some time later, well, here we are.

But, only Murrey knows Murrey's actual algorithm! Tim doesn't know it, I don't know it.


7) There are a lot of "MM add-ons" in use for tradestation, metastock, this & that; most of them are 100% based on Kruzel's rough draft notes (which are not right as we already discussed and Kruzel confirmed).

Hence, there are a lot of frustrated people out there who say "Murrey's stuff doesn't work".

It's not "Murrey's stuff" unless you have Murrey's actual stuff!! Go to his classes and use his software to get the "real thing"!

This isn't an advert for THM either! It is "what is", plain and simple.

Note that nor Tim nor the programmer explain us what is the correct way to use "Murrey' Maths" and what are the "fundamental flaws" of Tim Kruzel's notes which are widely disseminated

Then we are on our own !

But, only Murrey knows Murrey's actual algorithm! Tim doesn't know it, I don't know it.

It is just incorrect .... because Murrey has IMHO NO ALGORITHM. !

a) Murrey has no programming ability
b) Murrey lives in Nashville (Tennessee)
c) The developper of Murrey's software (Krystof Werling) lived in Germany at the time.
d) Murrey is a disorganised person proof is in the book he wrote, in his articles, in his behaviour with customers etc. IMHO I am not sure he understands the rigourousness and work necessary to develop a trading software program.
e) when you live in Nashville Tennessee why choosing a german guy living in Germany to develop your software - strange isn't it ?
f) remember that it was at the end of the 90's - we had no Skype, no Webinar possibilities etc - expensive foreign calls etc

then Murrey explains something to Wherling who programs it - ????

I am quite sure that Masterrmind can appreciate the obvious difficulties and possible flaws of such a procedure.

256 by 1/8th + 32

Attachment g

subscribed and start to study from first post

Quoting Masterrmind
{quote} Yes in fairness to the Murrey Math approach you are right as I have also mentioned before, that if you have not taken the real Murrey Math course and purchased the Murrey Math software and understood it to a very high level then you can have no real authority on Murrey Math Trading System. I fit into the class of traders that does NOT have any authority on Murrey Math trading. As far as the approach taken here in the MTTTM method is concerned I apply a simple almost mechanical approach using the MML levels (originally coded by Vladislav...
Masterrmind,

I think you found the right word : Approach

"Murrey's Math" is neither a Methodology nor a Trading System it is an "Approach".

We can credit Murrey to have popularized and vulgarized several tools, and concepts Gann has disseminated in his writings during 50 years

- the Squaring of Price and Time to show the relationship between both parameters
- division by 8 of a Price Action interval generating the Price Horizontal Lines
- the division by 8 of the Square by Diagonal Lines generating the Angles showing Price Action Speed and Acceleration
- the division by 8 of the Square by Vertical Lines showing the Vertical Time Lines

As for Gann we can just notice that he has only detailed his methodology about Angles - this explain why "Gann Angles" are widely build and used in numerous softwares or trading platforms

As Gann is most known (among other tools) for his "Angles", Murrey is known for his Murrey Math Lines (MML's)

Among others programs I use TradingView and on this platform you can find :

Gann Box
Gann Square
Gann Square fixed
Gann Fan (Angles)

even if we let aside how they are built and if they are "correctly built" according to what we define as correct for Gann, and if they keep their characteristics with a moving chart, all these tools even used together do not generate a trading system in itself.

That is IMHO the main reason you can not program or automatize it.

You can not automatize what does not exist. and you can not automatize an "approach"

Your M TTT M development is just your way to mechanize (automatize, program) the Gann / Murrey approaches using the MML's as the "bricks" of a trading system trying to answer the basic trading questions :

- when and where to enter
- when and where to exit
- where to place the Stop Loss
- how to calculate the Risk Reward Ratio

Masterrmind IMHO you are an "authority" on the subject, your threads are the proof.

(to follow)

Quoting OAPDave
Flaws to every approach Hmmmmmm I am not going to try and say Murrey as hit upon the Holy Grail, far from it, but if you take a little time to think about it, he is always right. Why do I say this, easy , he does a chart shift when he is wrong, as Parisboy would say think Russian Dolls, so in my humble opinion you must look at more than one Octave setting when deciding to trade from a smaller time frame OB/OS area, in short, chart shifts are telling you if a trend is in place. I keep reading Buy low Sell high, Buy support Sell resistance, sounds...
Dave

A 2000 discussion on a "Murrey Math software forum" about the programmation of a "chart shift " within Murrey's EOD software. Hope it will help :

Brian, At the seminar in Beverly Hills THM talked about how he determined the high and low of the frame .......he said for a 16 day frame he used the range of the last 32 days...and if prices closed past 10/8 or -2/8 he would adjust the frame. He also mentioned something about the prices going past 8/8 and 0/8 for several days to adjust the frame. Steve ...the computer guy was in the front row. I know he is with this group or the other. Also try agent moulder he's good at details.Ron


Yes... Murrey says 2X. That's not what the s/w does though. I don't know if Murrey is intentionally misleading the audience or if Werling has done something different than Murrey thinks he has. Bruce

I have the feeling that the true answer lies somewhere in between. I think that Murrey's software looks back up to two times the time period chosen and select only the first significant high and low that matter. If there is another significant high and low before the one that it picked, still within the two times the period that was selected, it ignores it.


If I had more details I would not say "I have the feeling", but I would say it is. Anyway, my feeling is:

- say you set the frame to 16. The software should look back 32 and see what significant highs and lows are present. Based on an algorithm it would then determine what is "significant", and then choose the closest "significant" to the present and drop the one before it, even if the one before is more "significant". Murrey keeps saying that the last high and low are the ones that count. But in fact they have to be significant highs and lows. It does not really matter where they are located, as long as they are the LAST significant high and low.

Brian's software now looks at the high and low within the designated period and adds lines based on the highest high and lowest low present in that period. I don't think that is the correct way of doing it. Adding a range finder and then computing the "significant" highs and lows, then choosing the last "significant" high and low are the way to go, IMHO. One should be easily able to compare this thought by comparing the daily charts from Murrey's software and the daily charts with Brian's software. You will probably have to go through fifty or more charts, and see what settings in Brian's software will equate with Murrey's daily chart set, say, at 16 periods. Do not change the periods in Murrey, but change them in Brian's to obtain the same results as in Murrey's. Use charts that have good price excursion.

I am planning to do just this as soon as Murrey sends me the latest software that will read data after last December. I hope this explains my "feelings". Cheers. Bijan

In recent versions I added the 1.5x & 2.0x multipliers (eg if using a 64 frame, then 2.0x would use the extreme high/low in the last 128 days).

A recent post by THM lends credence to using ONLY "natural" or 1x settings though...

The public post was dated 2/1/2k and titled "MMTS: OEX Support off current lows:
Downside almost over: Reverse soon" he shows the OEX in a 64 frame (8 days per 1/8th time interval).

To make XChartMM "match" his graph, the 64 frame setting is used along with the 1x multiplier - eg, NO multiplier.


I've heard this from Murrey before. The issue is that his s/w doesn't work that way. Remember that Kristof Werling is the one who created the code and what he's done may not match THM's desires. What the s/w does is 1.5*N+1, even in 64-bar frames.

That aside, you have all the bases covered, so it's not a problem. Bruce


Wait - what I'm saying is that if Murrey's prog really used 1.5n+1, then the output of his recent OEX graph *should* be different, because the price extremes were larger at 1.5n than at 1.0n.

In other words, Murrey's OEX graph contradicts the 1.5n+1 scenario for all intents and purposes


Guys, I think this may prove my point that regardless what time frame you put yourself in, the software looks for the most recent "significant" high and low to calculate the frame size.
Another chart which implies that 1.5x is the one to use as a general rule (this one is frame size 16).

On 1x, the high and low in 16 days do not compute the frame to match THMs output.


I agree, Brian. The only thing I've seen besides 1.5X+1 is a shorter display that seems to be reacting to a rule they have about significant lows/highs. The ABTXQ chart does that after a whipsaw in the rally that precedes the displayed portion of the chart. I have to assume the Murrey s/w looks for reversals off intermediate highs and if they're greater than X%, he says it's significant. I don't recall reading about that in the book, but I think it's in the s/w.

Bruce

Murrey's EOD s/w currently uses a greater number of bars than the frame size to test for significant highs/lows. The number of bars tested is 1.5*N+1 where N is the frame size. So for a 16-bar frame, the number of bars tested for significant high/low is1.5*16+1 = 25 bars. So a 16-bar frame, if allowed to display unassisted, will usually show 25 bars of data, the 32-baar frame will display 49 bars and the 64-bar frame will display 97 bars.

Murrey's s/w also has a whipsaw detector (of sorts) that tests to see if a whipsaw is sufficient to constitute a significant high/low. If the detector gets activated, the number of bars displayed will be less than 1.5*N+1. Bruce


Pretty simple really. With the frame settings of 4, 8, 16, 32 & 64; the program finds the highest high/lowest low in the last X bars, where X is:

on "1x", or natural, frame setting x 1, eg 64 is bars
on "1.5x", it is frame setting x 1.5, eg 64 is 64 * 1.5, or 96 bars
on "2x", it is frame setting x 2.0, eg 64 is 64 * 2, or 128 bars

I personally use the 2x setting, this seems to match Murrey's program output in the majority of cases. Brian


Glenn, Don't worry, I've hardly got pretensions about setting up a new trading religion - I'm just groping around for knowledge and
understanding.

Regarding violation of math rules, I thought it was one of Murrey's rules (underlying premises might be better) that the frame is set by the fractal - the fractal is set by the "relevant" inflection high/low - not highest and/or lowest in the look back period even though this is how the s/w does it. If my understanding and description of the rules is correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just new at this game) then its Murrey's s/w that breaks its own rules and premises. Would you like to comment on this? Thanks, Henry.

I have been using MM as one of a number of indicators day trading the NAZ e-mini. On balance I find it very useful for exits, not as good for entries. Regards Dimitri

With the frame settings of 4, 8, 16, 32 & 64; the program finds the highest high and lowest low in the last X bars to build the frame.

For example, using a frame setting of 64, X number of bars back is:
- 64 bars on "1x" (or natural) frame setting
- 96 bars on "1.5x", (64 * 1.5 = 96 bars)
- 128 bars on "2x", (64 * 2 = 128 bars)

It is up for some debate as to which one is the correct one to use. Several members have commented (summary of all) "I've never seen any chart from Murrey's s/w that has 2*N bars... only 1.5*N+1 or fewer. Murrey SAYS to use 2*N in his classes, but that's apparently not what his s/w does. You'd have to use the search mode to get that"

I personally use the 1.5 setting and it has matched the majority (95% +) of the charts I've seen as output from Murrey's own program. Hope this helps, Brian

Quoting Forest-Sea
{quote} There does seem to be a tendency for rejection of price to cross through the center 'bullseye' region of the circles . . . Obviously, this is an uneducated observation given your great experience working with Murrey ideas.

found in a former PDF " Murrey Math Rules"


Where is the price in relation to the Circles of Conflict?

A Is it rolling over it,
B Is it curling under it,
C Will it move inside it,

The Circles of Conflict are electrical and will change polarization at its own will, so trying to figure it out is only as simple as going with the direction it reverses off its center horizontal MMTLines (+ or - baby 1/8ths).

DAX Closed Short position + 107 points

DOW Closed Long position + 30 points

DAX Closed Short position + 260 points

The Trend is my friend