# 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)

YMM1 settled at 12556
Stretch: 37
1.612 of 37=59.64; say 60
12556-60=12496
or
12556+60=12616
whichever occurs first.
S/L @20 points after trade trigerred
Take profit at 3x37
12496+111=12607
or
12616-111=12505
YMM1 short 12491 (22:45PDT),... real US dollars.
es short triggred @1334. pre this method target is 1318.
Hi,
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......

BTW....
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.

ON A CLOSING NOTE, FADING THE FIRST MOVE HAS BEEN AN ADVANTAGEOUS TRADING STRATEGY, FOR ME AND MANY OTHER TRADERS, DURING THESE PAST TWO DECADES. THERE IS NO GOLDEN BLACK BOX FORMULA THAT WORKS EVERY DAY, EXCEPT IN YOUR WORLD WHERE YOU CHANGE THE RULES TO FIT YOUR DESIRED OUTCOME(S). Wishing you great success in all your trading.
hang loose, dude