10.3 SCALPER/RANGE TRADE SYSTEM

[atharmian]

Bob,

Great explanation... TMA original works better.

Athar.

That is the info TMA Norm gives you that TMA true does not and fits my original use and purpose of the tool. It was intended to show the strength of the move and then show you the move was weakening giving you a heads up on how much longer to stay in the trade. I will be going back to the TMA Norm in my trading. I just never liked TMA True. Sorry guys.

[cmeade2]

Bob,

Great explanation... TMA original works better.

Athar.

That is the info TMA Norm gives you that TMA true does not and fits my original use and purpose of the tool. It was intended to show the strength of the move and then show you the move was weakening giving you a heads up on how much longer to stay in the trade. I will be going back to the TMA Norm in my trading. I just never liked TMA True. Sorry guys.

I don't know why you say that because TMA Norm and TMA True both give the same value for the current bar. So there is no difference in signal information. The difference is that TMA Norm repaints in the past so you can't look at the chart and get an accurate sense for trades you might have made at an earlier time. This capability for back testing is the prime advantage of TMA true.

[nanningbob]

Bob,

Great explanation... TMA original works better.

Athar.

That is the info TMA Norm gives you that TMA true does not and fits my original use and purpose of the tool. It was intended to show the strength of the move and then show you the move was weakening giving you a heads up on how much longer to stay in the trade. I will be going back to the TMA Norm in my trading. I just never liked TMA True. Sorry guys.

I don't know why you say that because TMA Norm and TMA True both give the same value for the current bar. So there is no difference in signal information. The difference is that TMA Norm repaints in the past so you can't look at the chart and get an accurate sense for trades you might have made at an earlier time. This capability for back testing is the prime advantage of TMA true.

It is not backtesting that makes it valuable, it is letting you know how the strength of the move is running which is what the indi is used for. The updating of the lines which you call repainting is what gives you the key info. Look at the pictures, you get a clear view of what price has been doing, True can never do that for you. For me True is going in the trash can, it is not giving me the info I want, if you cant understand that info. you will not see the value of the indi.

[cmeade2]

Bob,

Great explanation... TMA original works better.

Athar.

That is the info TMA Norm gives you that TMA true does not and fits my original use and purpose of the tool. It was intended to show the strength of the move and then show you the move was weakening giving you a heads up on how much longer to stay in the trade. I will be going back to the TMA Norm in my trading. I just never liked TMA True. Sorry guys.

I don't know why you say that because TMA Norm and TMA True both give the same value for the current bar. So there is no difference in signal information. The difference is that TMA Norm repaints in the past so you can't look at the chart and get an accurate sense for trades you might have made at an earlier time. This capability for back testing is the prime advantage of TMA true.

It is not backtesting that makes it valuable, it is letting you know how the strength of the move is running which is what the indi is used for. The updating of the lines which you call repainting is what gives you the key info. Look at the pictures, you get a clear view of what price has been doing, True can never do that for you. For me True is going in the trash can, it is not giving me the info I want, if you cant understand that info. you will not see the value of the indi.

Bob

Help me out here. Focusing on the Eu/Usd H1 chart you posted up above, the TMA Norm shows a huge negative peak in the TMA which has since passed and which is much larger than the peak in the TMA true.

Are you saying that this peak is the important information? Note, however, that the TMA slope is increasing so it's not clear if there will be follow through on that peak.

The fact is that for me the capability for visual back testing is important. And looking at charts like the one you posted, I would get totally torqued by the TMA Norm because there would be a huge peak in the past, which would have been a great investment, but the fact is that the TMA did not look like that in the past.

I guess the basic question is how far back are you looking on the TMA norm to assess the strength of the move? And is it important whether the bars are increasing/decreasing in value?

Thanks again

cmeade2

[cmeade2]

Bob,

Great explanation... TMA original works better.

Athar.

That is the info TMA Norm gives you that TMA true does not and fits my original use and purpose of the tool. It was intended to show the strength of the move and then show you the move was weakening giving you a heads up on how much longer to stay in the trade. I will be going back to the TMA Norm in my trading. I just never liked TMA True. Sorry guys.

I don't know why you say that because TMA Norm and TMA True both give the same value for the current bar. So there is no difference in signal information. The difference is that TMA Norm repaints in the past so you can't look at the chart and get an accurate sense for trades you might have made at an earlier time. This capability for back testing is the prime advantage of TMA true.

It is not backtesting that makes it valuable, it is letting you know how the strength of the move is running which is what the indi is used for. The updating of the lines which you call repainting is what gives you the key info. Look at the pictures, you get a clear view of what price has been doing, True can never do that for you. For me True is going in the trash can, it is not giving me the info I want, if you cant understand that info. you will not see the value of the indi.

Bob

Help me out here. Focusing on the Eu/Usd H1 chart you posted up above, the TMA Norm shows a huge negative peak in the TMA which has since passed and which is much larger than the peak in the TMA true.

Are you saying that this peak is the important information? Note, however, that the TMA slope is increasing so it's not clear if there will be follow through on that peak.

The fact is that for me the capability for visual back testing is important. And looking at charts like the one you posted, I would get totally torqued by the TMA Norm because there would be a huge peak in the past, which would have been a great investment, but the fact is that the TMA did not look like that in the past.

I guess the basic question is how far back are you looking on the TMA norm to assess the strength of the move? And is it important whether the bars are increasing/decreasing in value?

Thanks again

cmeade2

Bob

As I go back and look at your posts, I think I see what you are getting at with Norm vs. True.

The fact is that I have a way to read the True charts that gets around a lot of this.

I will put some files together and send you a PM.

cmeade2

[disbellj]

The reason I started Eastern offset is because my Market Sessions indicator I got from web says session hours are one "set times", saying one thing, but I'm having to lie to that indicator and tell it my GMT offset it +3 when it is +2. SO the indicator looks to have been made during summer in US maybe, but is not correct now in winter US.

But I noticed by broker FXDD that was GMT+3 became GMT+2. At the same time, I noticed Forex was the same 5 PM Eastern before and after. I figured why not track day on Eastern time, where it didn't mater if it was DST or not, because the times seemed to stay the same if tracking in Eastern time.

If your broker is on Eastern time, they should be offset 0. I don't use GMT offset. I use Eastern offset.

I have one broker Eastern time broker MB Trading, and I start the day at 17th hour vs 24th / 0 hour.

I have FXDD which is Eastern offset of 7, and I start at the 0 hour. FXDD starts at the beginning of the Forex day. 5 PM ET Sunday to 5 PM ET Friday give us 5 full days.

Now if talking GMT, I see that in summer, MBT is GMT -4 and FXDD is GMT +3. In winter, MBT is GMT-5, and FXDD is GMT +2. Although the GMT shifts change between seasonal DST changes, between FXDD and MBT, the number of hours difference does not change. The difference is 7 summer and winter.

Cowboy IBFX, which is GMT+ 0, is Eastern + 5 in winter, I start at the 22nd hour. And GMT + 4 in summer and starts at the 21st hour.

If you know your broker's GMT offset already, just subtract -5 in winter US (DST off) and -4 in summer US (DST on).

In summer US, when DST changes to on, I expect GMT offsets to change the times, but because I am using Eastern times and not caring about DST or not, I know the open of the market stays the same in Eastern time. I would expect Sessions to also, and if I'm getting Eastern time, that Eastern time can be non-DST or DST, I don't care, but the start of day and session numbers shouldn't change IMHO. I may be wrong, but I think it needs tested out to see.

Forex Market Hours I get from Forex Factory when setting my time to Eastern. I start my day with beginning of Sydney Session at 5PM Eastern, same as beginning of Forex day, year-round. If I need to change to using GMT for sessions for session to stay the same when DST changes over, I will. But if we can't agree whether using GMT or ET offsets what time the market start and ends, then we should know, and be able to come to agreement. I can even give option for GMT offset if needed, I got the correct code to do so.

If you know your broker's GMT offset already, just subtract -5 in winter US (DST off) and -4 in summer US (DST on).

Now if you place the DailyOpenPivotSR indicator on the chart and the offset is not locked in until first tick of next week (shows when looking at AllPairs if you have it on another chart if they are both placed on charts one after another), then I recommend just waiting until Sunday Forex start at 5 PM / 17:00 Eastern Sunday. The indicator will do what it's supposed to do then, get the offset and lock it in.

I hope this answers any questions.

Kindest regards,

Don

[disbellj]

Bob,

So you are not concerned with a level, which both at any point in real time are the same, but you use the Tma Slope original indicator's repainting as an advantage as an early exit signal? If this shows it's running out of steam, at what point as far as slope of last e.g 5 bars in degrees would you say you are looking to exit, since it's hard for me to decipher a programmable exit from "running out of steam but has more to go".

Since we aren't using levels since Tma Slope not based on Tma True does not show history correct while Tma True does (Tma True shows the correct levels at a certain time in history, so I see a level .5 being hit five bars back, I can know that at the time five bars back, in real time, the level being hit was .5).

I can see that we can't backtest this strategy, BUT if you are using it as you are, I can see why since you explained further, I just need a way to program what you are looking at and when you exit or enter the reason why.

Thanks.

Kindest regards,

Don

[pacinvest]

Hey Bob

Thanks for indulging us again on this TMA discussion but it is important and good on you for sticking with your ideas. The penny dropped for me finally. In the past I was focused on visual back testing so that I could learn and understand the system and that's Ok but what's a lot more important is TRADING and this is what you have been talking about all along. We should separate these two things clearly in discussions and avoid distracting from the trading triggers discussion. Both TMA's provide some backtesting problems actually. I am going to go back and practice in real time with TMA Norm for awhile. That's the game. Thanks again Bob for the careful thought you have put into this.............................

[atharmian]

Exactly as Bob thought... there is much angst about TMA original (Norm) vs TMA True

Here is a definition of TMA (Triangular Moving Average):
http://daytrading.about.com/od/indicato ... ngular.htm

From earlier Forex Factory (FF) discussions, the TMA introduced by zznbrm was a 56 period LWMA (Linear Weighted Moving Average) with a double ATR envelope- 56LWMA+2ATR. An NRP (non-repainting) version of TMASlope was written by NeoTrader with some reverse engineering. And TMA has been popular ever since !

Though the article above mysteriously describes the TMA as responsive to changes, even though it is a smoothing of a moving average itself (i.e., the TMA is a double smoothed plot), the fact remains that TMA, like all tech indicators, is a lagging indicator. Perhaps TMA True, given further processing (and as Bob's pics on last page show), is even more lagging than TMA Original (Normal.) Just an unavoidable mathematical fact.

There are many other indis you can use for trend 'prediction' as Bob earlier mentioned. Suit your taste. The very basic and popular RSI is one with its 70/30 overbought/oversold levels. Another popular one is ADX , which actually gives better readings with its +DI and -DI components trending or crossing over each other. See www.stockcharts.com > Chart School for RSI, ADX and others, including MACD, a dual trending/oscillating indicator. Stochastics, of course, give you OB/OS readings in otherwise 'ranging' markets in their various TFs, with the traditional 80/20 levels.

And Bollinger Bands depend upon statistical determinations (2 standard deviations settings contain 95% of all price movement, from an assumed normal distribution) of whether price action is about to change direction with penetrating the bands. Interestingly, while BB might be one of the very few leading indicators, BB itself is highly prone to whipsaws.

Then we have newish indicators like TMA (discussed here) and Trend Magic, and sooo many others. Not to forget techniques that depend upon price, not time (Range Bars fit in both categories.) In the end, it is probability, i.e., after a number of trades, you can come up with an estimate of win and loss ratio. But then this win/loss ratio changes with 'market conditions', one reason why we are looking at 10.3 'ranging' vs the older 10.2x 'trending' methods.

Which is why, on p.101, instead of getting too deep in these religious wars of which indi is better, I had talked about the need for choice of indicators (if possible) in any Indy/EA script planned.

The fact is that most concepts are relative. For example, a 'trend' could well be a 'range' in a different TF and vice versa. Both trends and ranges can be more or less volatile, another major idea (a market condition) that has taken off in stock and futures markets with options trading, and which retail forex needs to explore.

Importantly, we need to seek integrated tools that can allow us some experimentation without spending too much time, so we can focus on the goal- profitable trading.

Athar.

[nanningbob]

Thanks for all the discussion guys. Why do I like the TMA Norm. The reason was if the bars were between 4 and 8 you usually got one good move. If the bar was bigger than 8 you got more than one good move and could have multiple moves in the same direction. To me that was the value I discovered in the TMA. That read was eliminated in the TMA True to the point I quit using it. Someone asked me why I abandoned such a good read, well I shouldnt have and stuck to my guns. Too many people, and again the questions pop up, that TMA is used for entrances and exits. That was never the intention of its use. It was to let you know the overall strength of the move so you could plan your entrances and exits but it in itself is not used for exits and entrances. You use other criteria for that. I like to use S/R lines with the DO per 10.2a and 10.3. To me those are easy reads. The question that has always been hard to answer is do I use S1/S2/S3 for TP. Well you dont know unless you use the TMA for Strength of move. If TMA is above 8 well dang it go for the bigger profit. If it is less than 8 well take a smaller profit. That is what I have always tried to teach to use that indicator for. I have tried for months to use TMA true and it hasnt helped in me staying in trades for a longer period than the TMA Norm does. So I am going back to it. That is my logic and that is my reasoning. My terms will be that the TMA updates its info so you can make a better decision TMA True does not. If you want to call that repainting and give it some negative connotation, be my guest. As for me I have tried both indicators over a period of months and I get more out of the TMA Norm. That will be my position.
CMeade has written me a PM giving me an addition suggestion an insight and if it pans out like he has shown, we will have even a better and clearer read on this subject. So here we go again.