No registration required! (Why?)

Verifying Hunters method

Starting this journal to properly understand Hunter's method and also run the method through the paces. Will start from Sun (5/14)

For the first trade:
YMM1 settled at 12556
Stretch: 37
1.612 of 37=59.64; say 60
Fade first move at either:
whichever occurs first.
S/L @20 points after trade trigerred
Take profit at 3x37
YMM1 short 12491 (22:45PDT),... real US dollars.
es short triggred @1334. pre this method target is 1318.
Covered YMM1 12491 (22:45PDT) short at 12451 (04:47PDT). Rational: faded 1.618% of the Stretch (actually nine points below 1.618% of the Stretch, i.e., 12437 + 62 = 12500) and covered with a +$200 profit (40 points = Stretch = $200). +$200 per contract = +29% profit basis intra-day margin ($672). The maximum risk for the trade was $40 per contract. The reward : risk ratio for this trade was 5 : 1. June e-mini $5 Dow futures (YMM1) traded at or above fair value for most of the night. The FOMC minutes will be released later today.
ym trade trigerred now at 12507. s/l 12547.
closed at 40 points loss

Originally posted by insyte

ym trade trigerred now at 12507. s/l 12547.
closed at 4 points loss.

Originally posted by insyte

es short triggred @1334. pre this method target is 1318.
from the paper trades taken so far it appears that this method has no real edge in trading the real market.
Ya know I've been doing this for a long time......
Manual and automated.

Hunter's approach is the first algorithmic framework I've have ever found of benefit from the www.

The market is just more than just digital points on a chart....its trends, its conflicts, its people in business doing business, gov'ts spending my money, and many other things.

I'm not really looking for digital perfection from hunter's intial direction, but trying to understand the framework of why it appears to work sometimes......

From my prespective, it did work today from yesterday's close (as did the ES and NQ). You have to look and see what it did in order to understand what its doing.

Closed 437
reversed @ 496 (what is this number?)
reversed @ 422 (what is this number? and its very precise)
reversed @ 553 (what is this number?)

Also, there are more fib numbers than just 1.618 2.X and 4.X
Hi insyte,
I understand you have no problem with your ethics.

What's the point of making the rules if you are going to change those rules,e.g., on day three of the test of "Verifying Hunter's Method."

Day Three: You changed the rules.
DUDE! SERIOUSLY DUDE. Forgettahboutit.

Don't waste your time testing the "Verifying Hunter's Methodology."
Don't waste your time changing rules.

You double the risk, from 20 points to 40 points, and at the same time, you deny a six point trade trigger exception.

Forget about PARI PASSU. You really don't need to do this. Really. You don't.

You doubled the stop loss rules from 14% risked to 29%, a poor money management decision. Your test parameter changes reduced the reward:risk probabilities by half.

What next? dipping into the tip jar? You initiated this string of posts because you had an interest in an additional technical analysis tool. As far a "no real edge," most moving averages, histograms, oscillators, hospitals and politicians tend to produce outcomes different than was expected, e.g., on an intra-day basis. Fading the first move on day's one and two, whether you chose to fade the Stretch calculation or 1.618% of the Stretch calculation produced successful results.

You adversely change the risk management rules. Yesterday you wouldn't allow a ten point adjustment to an entry trigger which would have doubled the profits, and made the first two days winners.

Today, day three, you change the rules to the detriment of the strategy.

Day One: 20 point stop loss rule.
Day Two: 20 point stop loss rule.
Day Three: 40 point stop loss rule.

Day three: You changed the rules of the "Verification of Hunter's
Method." Why test if you're goal is to sabotage the results, arbitrarily double the risk and reduce the profit potential by a third.

Successful trading determines when an entry is required to be executed a few points under a projected price measurement, when risk management is viable, and when taking a profit a little early is prudent. Tuesday, 17 May was exactly one of those days, where the projected price measurement was six points higher than the print high, and the reversal low was three points above the actual low. This trade would have doubled the results between days on day two. These two days of profits, approximately 200 points profit, i.e., $1000, a +148% return in two days (not including your new rules with a one day 40 point loss $200) was a significant event.

hang loose, dude
Thanks for posting your shared mutual interests. Last night I faded the first move by the Stretch calculation, risked eight YMZ1 (December $5 Dow futures), and opened a trailing stop, which was filled. The trailing stop performed with the offset. The (3) of (3, -1) didn't complete the price action projection. Knowing whether to fade the Stretch or 1.618% of the Stretch calculation is determined by the trader's perspective, not a cookie cutter price following mechanism. It's more useful as a price level assessment tool that can be used to identify whether an entry / exit is wise.

Here's my post elsewhere:
YMZ1 (December $5 Dow futures): Trading the (3, -1) formula from unchanged, ... fading the first move at the Stretch (46 pts) calculation (because every attempt above 12000 has failed recently), i.e., 12007 + 46 = 12053 (high = 12060, so far, risking $40 at one tick above the high). This represents the faded entry, i.e., (-1) of (3, -1). 12053 - 46 - 46 - 46 = 11915.

Insyte: I didn't post through the Summer, but am interested in your back testing of the (3, -1) formula. A physicist published the formula about ten years ago. The markets are mecurial and I don't expect a consistent long term tool. But, I have noticed that it works well when professional traders are gaming the system.... like when 'they' are waiting for global uncertainty to stabilize, or not.

The (3,-1) intra-day trading technique, like anything else, is not perfect. A few months ago you could sell the equity indicies when Europe's markets opened and buy back that short when those markets in Europe closed. Just an example of how nothing lasts, however, this price action pattern does tend to repeat on and off through each year. Earlier this year, for several weeks, sideways price action was rotating around 1.618% and 2.618% of the Stretch, but within the typical price action that tends to print directly or inversely around 4.25% of the Stretch.

Yorkmax: I started intra-day trading equity index futures in 1984 and have seen many different technical analysis tools perform well at times, but not at other times. (Ken Shaleen sells a Technical Analysis Characteristic Reliability Index, which I can summarize. Equity index futures are one of the worst markets when technical analysis is applied to, and tends to produce less than tradeable probabilities (+72%). You can't buy the strategy, but you can learn when, and how to use it. Sometimes the (3, -1) formula initiates an opportunity with mid-session support / resistance.

Special note: The Delta Society has published a tool, The Delta Phenomenon, which allows for a new beginning, i.e., instead of 1-10, as they count, it prints, 1, 1A, 2-10. They've (reportedly, and I have their book,) 200+ years of data to back up their "formula," or "theory," or "recipe," or whatever you want to call it. For the purposes of bright, brief and gone, look on a daily 45 Dow futures chart and pick a low, counting four days. The equity index futures are notoriously late by a day or two, but on the first late day, the odds of a reversal increase to 70%, and on the second late day the odds of a reversal increase to +80%.

My point, I've been recognizing that alternate ... 1, 1A, ... (3, -1) price projection.

I am looking forward to your shared mutual interests.