1
Analysis and Trading based on Envelopes, Waves, Cycles
- #8,068
- Mar 16, 2022 3:50am Mar 16, 2022 3:50am
- Joined Oct 2017 | Status: Trader | 12,472 Posts
DAX 5 mn, 30 mn, 60 mn 
- View Post
- Hidden for breach of Trader Code of Conduct
- #8,074
- Mar 16, 2022 5:38am Mar 16, 2022 5:38am
- Joined Oct 2020 | Status: Trader | 1,707 Posts
{quote} helioss why not ? but how and why find you that more easy ? moreover there is no explanation on your chart about the settings . Hence at first glance i do not find that "easy" to compare. Anyway I am open to exerimentations and improvements
TP & SL have clear rules. For a rookie like me it's important to have clear endpoints to follow
For example in my previous GER40 30min chart:
5 days Cycle..... FLD offset 23-26 bars (2 yellow lines)
Entry: cross over long FLD
SL: Low/High Last Swing
- #8,077
- Edited 7:44am Mar 16, 2022 7:31am | Edited 7:44am
- Joined Oct 2017 | Status: Trader | 12,472 Posts
{quote} With this approach FLD settings are fix and based on Hurst Cycle Length. TP & SL have clear rules. For a rookie like me it's important to have clear endpoints to follow
helioss it is positive you work on that subject.
But the problem is that there is NO FIXED CYCLES NOMINAL MODEL - no real "Hurst Cycle Length"
there is only "guidelines" to make a Cyclical Analysis because you have to start somewhere
See what I wrote (again) recently on the fact that there is officially 3 different Hurst Nominal Models. (in 5 years between the book (1970 and the course (1975))
Hurst explains or intellectually masks the discrepancy between the "Hurst Cycle Length(s)" and the reality under the concept Principle of Variation (which by the way allows you to "explain" whatever difference with rhe "model" and the reality°.
In his analysis Hurst systematically refers to what he labels "the time period equivalent of the nominal component of the model".
Example : Profit Magic page 59
The stock is Perkin Elmer and the time period is March through September 1961.
Now we must examine this chart carefully in the light of our model.
2 samples of a periodicity are shown with lows at A, B, and C.
The average duration of these is 13.9 weeks, which we note is satisfyingly close to the 13-week nominal duration cycle of our model.
Each of these is seen to consist of 3 shorter duration elements, the lows of which are shown on the figure as points 1 through 7.
6 samples are present, averaging 4.6 weeks.
This is the 1961 time period equivalent of the nominal 3.25-week component of our model.
Each of these consists of two shorter duration regularities.
12 samples are present with an average duration of 2.3 weeks, again the 1961
equivalent of the 1.625-week nominal component of our model.
This situation is a good example of the deviations from model nominality that can be expected in individual issues and for varying periods of time.
Each of the 2.3-week durations also shows a one-half duration cycle of 1.15 weeks average.
This periodicity has not been mentioned in our model as yet, except for the statement that such shorter duration regularities exist.
- #8,078
- Edited 7:56am Mar 16, 2022 7:43am | Edited 7:56am
- Joined Oct 2020 | Status: Trader | 1,707 Posts
{quote} helioss it is positive you work on that subject. But the problem is that there is NO FIXED CYCLES NOMINAL MODEL - no real "Hurst Cycle Length" there is only "guidelines" to make a Cyclical Analysis because you have to start somewhere See what I wrote (again) recently on the fact thhat there is officially 3 different Hurst Nominal Models. Hurst explains or intellectually masks the discrepancy between the "Hurst Cycle Length(s)" and the reality under the concept Principle of Variation (which by the way allows you to "explain" whatever difference...
Of course your Hurst approach is more correct but you are a MASTER on it so you can manage it very well.
I'd like to analyze if this easier approach on FLD can be good & useful at the same time
Tnx for your detailed explanations, you are a great MASTER
- #8,079
- Mar 16, 2022 7:58am Mar 16, 2022 7:58am
- Joined Oct 2017 | Status: Trader | 12,472 Posts
{quote} Yeah exactly!!! This is key. For my mind it's difficult this approach...i work better on clear rules. Of course your Hurst approach is more correct but you are a MASTER on it so you can manage it very well. I'd like to analyze if this easier approach on FLD can be good & useful at the same time
I think you can have different approach of the same problem or methodology.
But the first KEY is to understand that things are RELATIVE and submitted to CONDITIONS .
Hence you HAVE to never forget the conditions for which what you say is TRUE (or very close to reality)
Eliades do not trade like you and me . He sells a software , reports, webinars, seminars etc.
Hence it has to be complicated (you need the help of Eliades to be correct) under the appearance of simplicity (which is appealing)
There is no such thing as "free lunch" in the Hurst methodology. You have to do your homework. It is a necessary part of your education in HUrst Methodology.
Dig what Eliades write. The methodology is so robust (as every methodology based on Moving Averages and Cycles) that you get good results.