Support Board
Support Board
Search Board
Control Panel
View My Posts / Threads
Direct MessagesDate/Time: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 02:13:20 +0000
Post From: Differences in SC's version of Bill Williams Fractals Study
| [2021-09-22 05:23:32] |
| User68474 - Posts: 195 |
|
John,(and anyone else who might be interested)....what should have been obvious to me many times before, but somehow evaded my scrutiny, has become apparent after, once again, going back to Bill Williams' "Trading Chaos, 2nd Edition" and rereading. I copy, quote and paste: " The working definition is repeated here for emphasis: A Fractal must have two preceding and two following bars with lower highs (higher lows in a down move). In a buy Fractal, we are interested only in the bars’ high. In a sell Fractal, we are interested only in the bars’ low." I see that the SC "math" seems to show considerations/conditions/paramaters/logic for the bars' LOWS in the case of BUY Fractals (Case 1, which does NOT seem to be part of the Williams' definition), BUT, for the SELL Fractal Signals, does NOT in any "case", esp. Case 1, "symmetrically"/conversely concern itself with bars' high in DOWN Fractals (which, again by Williams' definition, IS the "correct" way, i.e. NOT considering the highs.) So I see an inconsistency here, the SC BUY Fractal conditions/logic being incorrect(compared to William' Legacy logic), yet the SC SELL Fractal logic seems to be correct, coinciding with and following that Legacy logic. That would perhaps explain the discrepancies I (and perhaps others) have seen over the years in the outright greater numbers of Fractals "painted" on other platforms as compared to SC. I wish it were not the case, as I have said, I prefer the seeming "filtering effect" of SC's version. Maybe if you add the converse consideration of Highs in the SELL Fractals(blasphemously disregarding Williams' Legacy Logic to be "consistent"), we/you could render an even more efficient tool for filtering out "misleading" Fractals! Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-09-22 05:46:23
|