zwyss - I suspect we will never know if there are "better"
first entry calls than others. In any case, you can estimate
the chances you mention by looking at the trade history.
There were 251 total trades. 145 were 1-entry trades.
68 were 2-entry trades. 24 were 3-entry trades. 14 were
4-entry trades.
Whenever there was a 1st entry signal:
It was a 1-entry trade 58% of the time (145/251).
It was a 2-entry trade 27%...(68/251)
It was a 3-entry trade 9%...
It was a 4-entry trade 6%...
Whenever there was a 1st entry signal AND a 2nd entry signal:
It was a 2-entry trade 64% of the time (68/(68+24+14)).
It was a 3-entry trade 23%...
It was a 4-entry trade 13%...
Whenever there was a 1st entry signal AND a 2nd entry signal
AND a 3rd entry signal:
It was a 3-entry trade 63% of the time (24/(24+14)).
It was a 4-entry trade 37% of the time (14/(24+14)).
So no matter which entry signal you are talking about (1st,
2nd, or 3rd), it was followed by another entry signal about
35% to 40% of the time.
Well, Matt is the only person who can give an answer to the
question if there are stronger and weaker entry signals or if all
signals are about equal. This system was once compared to a rubber
band which bounces back if stretched too much. Maybe the entries
were set when the rubber band is stretched 70%, 80%, 90% and 95%.
That would mean that there is always the same chance of getting
next entries because we just don't know if the market turns at 65%,
78%, 92 % or maybe the band explodes which would not be
good.......
zwyss - I suspect we will
Follow the system
Posted by yojimbo on 14th of May 2011 at 11:41 am
zwyss - I suspect we will never know if there are "better" first entry calls than others. In any case, you can estimate the chances you mention by looking at the trade history. There were 251 total trades. 145 were 1-entry trades. 68 were 2-entry trades. 24 were 3-entry trades. 14 were 4-entry trades.
Whenever there was a 1st entry signal:
It was a 1-entry trade 58% of the time (145/251).
It was a 2-entry trade 27%...(68/251)
It was a 3-entry trade 9%...
It was a 4-entry trade 6%...
Whenever there was a 1st entry signal AND a 2nd entry signal:
It was a 2-entry trade 64% of the time (68/(68+24+14)).
It was a 3-entry trade 23%...
It was a 4-entry trade 13%...
Whenever there was a 1st entry signal AND a 2nd entry signal AND a 3rd entry signal:
It was a 3-entry trade 63% of the time (24/(24+14)).
It was a 4-entry trade 37% of the time (14/(24+14)).
So no matter which entry signal you are talking about (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), it was followed by another entry signal about 35% to 40% of the time.
nice statistics, thanks.
Posted by Michael on 14th of May 2011 at 03:29 pm
nice statistics, thanks.
yojimbo, nice statistics Well, Matt is
Posted by zwyss on 14th of May 2011 at 12:53 pm
yojimbo, nice statistics
Well, Matt is the only person who can give an answer to the question if there are stronger and weaker entry signals or if all signals are about equal. This system was once compared to a rubber band which bounces back if stretched too much. Maybe the entries were set when the rubber band is stretched 70%, 80%, 90% and 95%. That would mean that there is always the same chance of getting next entries because we just don't know if the market turns at 65%, 78%, 92 % or maybe the band explodes which would not be good.......
My trade count may be
Posted by yojimbo on 14th of May 2011 at 01:42 pm
My trade count may be slightly off as I was getting bleary-eyed trying to distinguish blue from blue-gray from mauve. Close enough for jazz.