Wilder Delta and Adam

scpope

Junior member
33 0
Thanks for all the replies.

I'm new to trading, having been reading about it for about a year, and trying to swing trade for the last two months. I do suffer from trying to force the market by seeing swings before the full evidence and am looking for a more mechanical/mathematical system. Hence my initial interest in new concepts and Welles Wilder. With an understanding of the caveat's mentioned above, I will add it to my reading list.

I also agree with the comments earlier regarding jumping straight into the software. Their's nothing like trying to program a back test on a system/method and checking the graphs to prove your understanding. It has helped me understand some methods.

Regards ThePope
 

DaveJB

Experienced member
1,159 42
Skim,
like any event, that depends on where you are standing, and how fast you are moving!
The point here is that an observable event is used as a metronome, which is fine.... it is fair enough to say 'when that does this, so and so happens', that is recording an observation - where WW (and plenty more) go wrong is that they ascribe some sort of 'reason' to it, which is (a) immaterial - who cares why the clock ticks when all you need is a regular tick to be heard? (b) cobblers, you don't have the data to suggest a reasonable hypothesis.
It is human nature to 'understand' things, even when we patently don't have clue 1 - take the Universe, last time I checked the string theory lot were still rampant and the Universe made mathematical sense in 11 dimensions, but especially so in 26 (I think the numbers are right there - it's around a century since a self taught mathematician from India suggested this, I think). Now, call me Mr Silly but when I talk to jobbing Physicists (you know what it's like, you're halfway through the washing up and the doorbell goes...."hello mate, is yer mother in? Need any Quantum Theory explaining or your drive resurfaced?" ;) ) Anyhow, they'll patiently explain that you get 3D spatial, plus time, and the other 22 are 'rolled up smaller than the Planck length' - it's gibberish, and so is 'why' in Delta.
I'm not arguing with you here, I think I'm agreeing - but the point is that Astrology types can buy in on the 'it's the planets, man...' level, and out and out cynics like me can accept the turns are indeed both visible and predictable, there is no barrier to Delta whatever your views - I wouldn't want to put fellow cynics off ;)
It's very interesting though, isn't it? For other posters etc I'd suggest you visit www.dsistock.com if interested, that's the site for Delta and there are examples to look at that ARE representative of what to expect.
Personally I think exit timing is perhaps improved using this, rather than entry.
It might be worth explaining to lurkers etc that anyone buying into Delta is subject to the usual sort of Druidical non-disclosure stuff, handing over of firstborn, and the like... Welles-Wilder and the chap he got this off have obviously invested time and effort into something that is demonstrably able to so as claimed, and it would be unfair to reveal all on a public site. Whilst I am happy it works I am not cnvinced that I could make a living following it - in all systems etc the individual, the instrument(s) traded, etc have a bearing on the outcome - for my own circumstances etc I regard it as a useful extra in my existing armoury, mainly for exit timing rather than selection. Others will be completely different. It is not a scam.
Dave
 

Skimbleshanks

1
2,325 16
Perhaps I didn't make my statement that clear - I meant that the general assumption is that if a lunar cycle is 28 days (full moon to full moon or new moon to new moon) then the vast majority of people when looking for a lunar cycle concentrate on the 28 days period. And then pooh-pooh astronomy because they can't find any consistent cycle within the 28 days.

So the majority rubbish moon cycles, because they're looking in the wrong time frame!

I agree with you - it is great to have in your tricks of the trade box, but I would not be able to make money using Delta in isolation.
 

DaveJB

Experienced member
1,159 42
Yeah,
there's also a tendency to latch onto the wrong point in it all - provided you accept stocks can cycle that's it. MESA attempts to identify the cycle and non-cycle periods, which I thought might be useful. From Delta it looks more like perhaps the cycles persist, but amplitude drops so you can't see it.
Dave
 

dsmodi

Established member
509 2
The lunar cycle is in fact 4 x 28 days.

skim,

Can you or someone else explain the above in some details please....

Cheers
 

DaveJB

Experienced member
1,159 42
I think Skim confused a little bit of info here, combining a cycle period with a cycle count. The lunar cycle repeats at 28 day intervals, Skim is I believe talking about making a longer term cycle up out of 4 lunar ones. Skim was pointing out an observation - that when looking for significant effects every full moon or whenever you go off the idea pdq as it doesn't seem to work, and suggesting that a multiple of that period might be the appropriate value to use.
I would caution anyone reading this, or any of the usergroup stuff on the web, that nobody has published 'The' Delta method or enough to join the dots, as far as I've seen so far anyway... in fact you can get more accurate info from analysing the charts posted publicly on the Delta site!
I HAVE seen some very misleading stuff generated by obvious dot joining - the only way to learn Delta is to buy the book. It isn't for the faint hearted - to use it you'll either spend a huge amount of time hand charting stuff or pay a couple of grand for the software.
Dave
 

Bigbusiness

Experienced member
1,408 23
Hi Skim,

I can't find much information about the book. Did you find it useful? I am pleased with the Delta book but I had an idea of what I would get from it before I bought it. Ocean theory is something I know nothing about.
 

Skimbleshanks

1
2,325 16
I bought my Ocean book in 2002; its number is in the early 200s, so there weren't that many around when I bought my copy. I've never come across anyone else who knows about Ocean or who has the book which is a pity as it would be nice to discuss it (just like with Delta, it's nice to know if you've reached the same conclusions for a particular market).

The book is simplistic in layout and functional. It's obviously protected by copyright so I'll just tell you the things it covers: the ocean equation, the ocean index, natural market mirrors, natural market rivers, the Zen moment, and the law of reverse effect.

The book goes through each, explaining what it is and why, and gives a way for you to work it out these 'indicators' using a spreadsheet. It's all quite mathematical. I may have done pure maths and applied maths at A level, but it certainly didn't help me when reading the book.

But there is still an element of arbitrariness to Ocean as it is presented in the book; and that is an invitation for those who love to take things further. In other words it is a mathematician's delight.

In the book Sloman states: "... it is advantageous to develop at least partially your own approach to markets. The Advanced Ocean Software that is part of the Ocean Master program is designed to give you a set of tools with which to develop your own market innovations, should you wish to do that."

And as with anything at this level of sophistication, it is definitely not for beginners, or even intermediates, as there is virtually nothing on how you actually trade using ocean. The book is actually called 'Ocean Theory; an Introduction' so that says it all.

All in all, it's very much like Delta - great to know about, but virtually impossible to use in isolation for trading, yet when mixed with other knowledge, it is good to have. And just like Delta, it tells you the theory and how to work it out, and leaves you to get off your backside and put in the work. So the lazy and mathematically-challenged will find it a waste of money ...
 

Bigbusiness

Experienced member
1,408 23
Thanks Skim. That was just what I was looking for. Having enjoyed the Delta book, I think I will probably buy this one at some point. Mathematics does fascinate me and I enjoy spending hours working out ideas with spreadsheets.
 

Bigbusiness

Experienced member
1,408 23
That book certainly looks interesting. You don't see this written about many books:-

Editorial Reviews
Atlantis Rising

The Temple of Man is an accomplishment of truly Herculean proportions. Nothing written in the past two hundred years, with the exception of only one book, even approaches it in enormity of purpose, scope, subject matter, majesty and profundity. . . . One needs to learn to read this book and then immerse oneself in it. Were one to do this, and assuming diligence, sincerity, determination and some ingenuity by the reader, the outcome toward which all human life is aimed, the evolution of consciousness is assured.
 

Peter

Active member
153 0
Hi SS

I dont know if you feel your allowed to discuss the delta cycles in any detail,

BUT a few things I dont think were very clearly stated in TDP ( delta book )

I only recently obtained it and only have read it once so i may have overlooked something.

Theres mention of a 4 yearly, 1 yearly 4 monthly and 4 day cycle.

I reallise some are classed as Lunar cycles, BUT IM still not clear on for eg the Yearly one

A normal year as we know it is about 365 cal days or 12 months

But the eg of this lunar year in Delta as i understand it is 1 lunar year is how many cycles of the moon is in a year. SO IF its on average a 28 day cycle for the moon to orbit the earth as I understand it, THEN is there 12 or 13 lunar cycles in 356 cal days?

12 x 28 cds is 336 days and 13 x 28 cal days is 364 days VERY close to a normal year.

Yet the eg given in the book OF WHICH THERE IS ONLY ONE related to the yearly cycle is ONLY about 353 days.. Tide to Tide Something like Feb 18th 1984 to Feb 6th 85 if i recall.

On checking the dow for eg I DONT THINK this 353 day cycle has great consistancy although some are close.

If one then uses a 4 year cycle UNLESS they have an accurate yearly cycle How on earth( pardon the pun ) can you expect a 4 yearly to be any where near correct

I have noted however there is a regular 4 yealy cycle on the Dow which impresses me, BUT its NOT very consistant in accuracy of being all near the same ammount of days.

So the 4 monthly Im assuming is 4 lunar cycles of approx 28 x 4 = about 112 days

To me so far they DONT make it clear.

Id appreciate any feed back on this..

Thks pete
Skimbleshanks said:
Perhaps I didn't make my statement that clear - I meant that the general assumption is that if a lunar cycle is 28 days (full moon to full moon or new moon to new moon) then the vast majority of people when looking for a lunar cycle concentrate on the 28 days period. And then pooh-pooh astronomy because they can't find any consistent cycle within the 28 days.

So the majority rubbish moon cycles, because they're looking in the wrong time frame!

I agree with you - it is great to have in your tricks of the trade box, but I would not be able to make money using Delta in isolation.
 
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock