The Edge Trading System

[James Fell]

Message from Developers of The Edge

My name is James Fell and I am the Executive Director and VP Marketing for Right Angle Trading, developers of The Edge Strategy. We have followed this thread since its early stages, but have decided not to post here until now because we did not wish to engage in endless debate on this site (which we all know is something that can happen on bulletin boards). Truthfully, I am aware that it is dangerous for me to be making this post because I fear that it may result in additional criticisms and being bombarded with requests to further explain or justify our comments.

That being said, I have witnessed a number of posts that I feel it necessary to respond to so that readers of this thread can obtain the information they require to make an informed decision about The Edge. This post is not meant to attack anyone, so please do not take my comments personally. I simply wish to clarify some points for readers. Further, I wish to assert that I will not respond to direct questions on this thread. If people have questions, please see my contact information at the bottom, as I or Bette would be more than happy to speak with you. It is my hope that this will be the first and last time that I post here, because we are too busy trading and running the business to engage in endless debate. Nevertheless, if I see further need of clarification on a point or points there is a possibility that I will return.

Below are a few recent comments I have seen here, along with Bette Crowe’s clarification. I apologize for the length of this post.

QUOTE: “The new manual contains numerous new chart examples, which show beyond any doubt that the lady is totally misusing the tems double top and bottom, on p30 for example for her second top all four preceding bars have higher highs, higher closes, and higher lows - I can't think of a worse candidate for a 'top'... it's now become clear to me why I struggled to understand a number of edge trades. In support of the manual I have to say that anyone who actually has a clue about TA will find her version of a double anything problematical, but (luckily) it's obvious what she is driving at so it doesn't actually matter very much. The new manual fills in the blanks a bit, dodgy areas in the previous manual aren't confusingt any more.... not that it's better explained, it's more a case of you suddenly see she's misusing some common TA terms which made trades difficult to follow.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: I do not use classical technical analysis double tops and bottoms in The Edge. I use the tops and bottoms that are in the area of the peaks and points of the indicator that is laid over top of the price bars. This was done in an effort to make it easier for traders to spot the tops and bottoms and overall makes no difference in the number of set ups or the profit factor of the trades, or, in fact, if we indeed have a double top (or bottom). However, I wish to thank you for pointing this out and will explain this further in the next version so more seasoned traders do not get confused. I would also like to add that very little of The Edge Strategy is what you can call classical technical analysis, as I have changed several indicators and used them in different ways.

QUOTE: “I still outright reject the leeway on double top/bottom, any sensible and reasonably experienced chart reader should be able to say whether they are looking at a higher high, double top or lower high - granted the changeover point at which you decide the double becomes a higher high instead will be a matter of interpretation, but as this is a divergence system I cannot accept the idea that a second top 8 pts lower than the first is a double top on Dow 1 minute bars.... I've attached a small picture of the DJIA, A and B mark what I'd call a higher high, yet they are within 6 or 7 points of each other and I have some problems accepting that I can call this a lower top if necessary.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: Giving some leeway is common practice as the number of trades would be greatly diminished if one waited for a double top or bottom to be exactly the same. This leeway is used by many technicians in the industry, and in fact many use the word “approximate” in describing how close the tops and bottoms should be. I do, however, acknowledge in The Edge Strategy that trades with higher highs or lower lows have a higher probability of winning than double tops and bottoms.

QUOTE: “This system is now different to the one I received a few weeks back, in that 'old' system manual a number of highs and lows were used, not the close price, and this makes a significant difference....more of a difference occurs now that the indicator dips/peaks are compare to the bar immediately under them - the previous manual shows a number of examples where this is clearly not so, indicator peaks and dips are 'tied' to price moves that are several bars displaced.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: You are correct that the occasional error was made in the past, and the new manual was prepared to be as precise as possible. Still there may be the occasional error. We would greatly appreciate you pointing out any error on the Customer Feedback form of the Customer Support Section of our website, and we will integrate the necessary changes into the next version.

QUOTE: “I've chatted to a few people via PM on this, and I am impressed by the efforts some have gone to - my overall view after running it myself (within the limitations identified above, which means some of the official trades have had me wondering) is that it's every bit as good as most of the free stuff out there. If I ever want to lose serious money I'd trade it in a sideways market, doubling up a lot.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: I trade the system exactly as it is taught in the e-book and my trades are regularly posted on our website. Anyone can check and see that the system is profitable even just using a 10 tick stop and 10 tick profit target on the Russell Mini.

QUOTE: “I cannot help, having looked at the new manual and compared it to the old one, getting a distinct impression from it - it seems to me that the method has been altered rather significantly for a start.... the indicator changes don't bother me, the changes to which price bars to look at, and what prices to compare have a bigger impact than perhaps immediately appears the case - consider this, if these indicators are indeed a leading indication of price move, then why is the bar immediately under the dip/peak used? Surely a leading indicator moves before the price, not coincident with it?”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: If you scan a few days of charts on our site you will find that in most cases price does coincide very closely with the peaks and points of the indicator. In fact, you can put up a simple oscillator and find this to be the case most of the time on any chart. As prices turn so do the oscillators. The distance between the close at the peaks varies very little from the classical high to high or low to low distance.

QUOTE: “know this is basic, but here's a refresher on precisely what double bottoms are supposed to be (as per StockCharts.com who are, I believe, pretty big on Murphy's TA stuff): http://stockcharts.com/education/Ch...ubleBottom.html“

BETTE’S RESPONSE: To confirm an earlier statement I made regarding approximating, if you view the following from the above mentioned link, the words “roughly equal” are used to describe the difference between double bottoms: “The double bottom is a major reversal pattern that forms after an extended downtrend. As its name implies, the pattern is made up of two consecutive troughs that are roughly equal, with a moderate peak in between.”

QUOTE: “The problem of applying this logic to stock indexes is apparent. Obviously, the 3% rule would mean that DOW peaking at 11,000 could then go to 11,300 within which, the double top would still be valid---yet way too wide to use on an intraday basis.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: We suggest using a difference of 1-2% on daily charts.

QUOTE: “and I'm far from convinced that the 'rules' are actually being followed by the designer - one reason why people fail to obtain the results a system designer manages is that the designer, knowing every little nuance, is applying a fair degree of discretion to signal selection that the rulebook simply doesn't cover.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: I post my trades on the Russell approximately three to four times per week (I simply don’t have time to do it every day, or I would) as a guide for the traders of The Edge to check their trades against. We also have more detailed charts in the Customer Support Section of the website that walk you through every trade to confirm what trades should have been made. The charts show the indicators and have detailed descriptions and comments of entries and exits on every trade. I stick to The Edge Strategy exactly and I do not use any discretion as this would be totally counterproductive as I am doing this as a tutorial.

QUOTE: “Users need to discover methods to know when (and when not) to apply it rather than trying to fix the system or get the designer to reword…”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: Just a note that there IS a section in the e-book that tells traders when not to use the system. For example, around important news, options expiry, Fed announcements, month end, contract rollover days etc.

Hopefully these responses clarify some points for readers of this thread. Again, please do not hesitate to contact Bette or me if you have further questions.

Best regards,

James S. Fell, MA, MBA
Executive Director
E-mail: [email protected]
www.rightangletrading.com

 

[ronfalcone]

re: The Edge response

First, thank you for responding to some of our inquiries. It does show integrity and a willingness to establish dialogue---not always typical in this field.

But with all due respect, several of Bette's answers seem to raise more questions than they answer. Please consider the following, presented first as the original question, then Bette's response, and then my critique/follow-up question:

ORIGINAL ?: ..... if these indicators are indeed a leading indication of price move, then why is the bar immediately under the dip/peak used? Surely a leading indicator moves before the price, not coincident with it?”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: If you scan a few days of charts on our site you will find that in most cases price does coincide very closely with the peaks and points of the indicator. In fact, you can put up a simple oscillator and find this to be the case most of the time on any chart. As prices turn so do the oscillators. The distance between the close at the peaks varies very little from the classical high to high or low to low distance.

MY CRITIQUE/?: Sorry to nitpick, but this answer seems to raise more questions than it resolves. The original question raised the problem of "coincidental movement" of indicator with price. Thus, if the indicator is not lagging, HOW can it be coincidental with price?? Isn't the whole point of a non-lagging indicator one that moves *before* price? Your comment 'as prices turn so do the oscillators' makes no sense in the context of the issue raised. Can you clarify?

ORIGINAL QUESTION: “...Obviously, the 3% rule would mean that DOW peaking at 11,000 could then go to 11,300 within which, the double top would still be valid---yet way too wide to use on an intraday basis.”

BETTE’S RESPONSE: We suggest using a difference of 1-2% on daily charts.

MY CRITIQUE/? You are mistaken, correct? A 1-2% difference on the mini dow means a movement of between 100 and 200 points! Seems like an awful lot of slippage to deal with while waiting for a DB or TOP to emerge! I think you need to reconfigure your explanation in terms of points---say a 3 or 4 point difference between one top and another?

Ron

 

[ronfalcone]

one more critique

one additional point I'd like to make.

Bette says that, in response to the question of when and when not to trade (in view of concerns posted over whipsaw markets and the question of getting creamed using her system in those markets), her response is that the Edge "does" indeed provide info on when and when not to trade. But the problem is, her response doesn't answer the question whatsoever. For example, she advises not to trade during options expiry days, FED releases, etc. Yes, we all know this - this is trading 101 for Dummies. But what about WHIPSAW vs. non WHIPSAW markets?? That was, I believe, the question or concern.

Is there advice on HOW to define a specic market at the beginning of the day, based on the OR, etc., and then how to strategize from that point? That sure would be helpful.

Ron

 

[ZDO]

RESPONSE to RESPONSE

re QUOTE: “and I'm far from convinced that the 'rules' are actually being followed by the designer - one reason why people fail to obtain the results a system designer manages is that the designer, knowing every little nuance, is applying a fair degree of discretion to signal selection that the rulebook simply doesn't cover.”
I THINK THIS RESPONSE IS STILL BETTE R: “A more undesirable possibility is this generalization – system designers DO NOT know every little nuance, cannot know every nuance (Every nuance makes the system a totally new and distinct system btw)
and there is a HUGE degree of discretion to signal selection that the rulebook simply doesn't cover… pay up and go spend some days with one or two of these “master turn pickers” and you’ll see them applying rules and following impulses they don’t have a clue they are applying and therefore could not even begin to explain to you how they do it… let alone explain how you could replicate it. ”

re: 'Doubles'. Yesterday I projected this designer is almost ready to evolve a new revision that will have virtually NO mention of double tops and bottoms… and guess what; BETTE’S RESPONSE was: "I do not use classical technical analysis double tops and bottoms in The Edge. I use the tops and bottoms that are in the area of the peaks and points of the indicator that is laid over top of the price bars. This was done in an effort to make it easier for traders to spot the tops and bottoms and overall makes no difference in the number of set ups or the profit factor of the trades, or, in fact, if we indeed have a double top (or bottom). However, I wish to thank you for pointing this out and will explain this further in the next version so more seasoned traders do not get confused. I would also like to add that very little of The Edge Strategy is what you can call classical technical analysis, as I have changed several indicators and used them in different ways.”
…Projection update! – we’re watching the use of the ‘double’ word disappear in living thread color - ALMOST THERE!

ronfalcone: re: “…in response to my questions and concerns, assured me that my e-mail address would be passed along to satisfied users of the Edge; as yet, I haven't heard from anyone and am not sure this is the way to allay my concerns.”
Testimonials from happy users are only valuable if you get a 2 year contract from the ‘witness’ to keep you abreast of how they are doing with the system. If these vendors provided you with 10 ‘witnesses’, how many do you think would still be faithful witnesses two years from now? My next projection – neither James nor Bette will be using this system two years from now. What about you? Will you be using it? Probably not… even though it’s a ‘good’ system

Again - this is not a negative (or positive) comment on the integrity of these vendors. Regardless of their intentions for their individual customers, lets nonjudgementally let them be in business (which is to seek and leverage an advantage)… and also nonjudgementally acknowledge that with systems they can not do anything but ‘keep the best and sell the rest’ - unless they are really stupid.

re” QUOTE: “Users need to discover methods to know when (and when not) to apply it rather than trying to fix the system or get the designer to reword…”
BETTE’S RESPONSE was: "Just a note that there IS a section in the e-book that tells traders when not to use the system. For example, around important news, options expiry, Fed announcements, month end, contract rollover days etc.”
Not even close to what I was talking about – and I suspect they already know this. Sorry I’m not brushed off that easily… Here’s a rehash of one of my earlier posts on this thread. In the end with all ‘Edge’ type systems, all divergence, ob/os etc systems, a trader is basically saying “I am the guy who steps in front of trends / swings / whatever and stops them. I am the guy who steps in and starts new trends. Often singlehandedly … and I can do it using charts and indicators” Arrogance? Yes, but it’s more than just arrogance and it's arrogance that won't last long. Apply this to ALL for market types and you’ll get crumbled and humbled. These are contrarian systems. Will the same contrary approach work over and over, time after time in all types of auctions?? Please! We wish!

Also let’s touch on the ‘psychology’ just a little. These are contrarian systems! Contrarians are going against the crowd. And no matter where you are on this planet – you are IN the crowds. Yep, even if you built your office in a Faraday cage and you’re also wearing special head bands , you’re still IN the crowds. And “… going against the crowd is not painless. Neuropsychologists have found that social pain (the pain of going against the crowd, or being excluded) is felt in the same parts of the brain as real physical pain. So contrarian investing is a little bit like having your arm broken on a regular basis.” (John Maudlin). We traders have deep psych ‘issues’ going on that attracts us to ob/os systems (ala the life pervading patterns in Steenbarger’s recent article, etc but actually going to far deeper levels than anything the left brain can work on) and without going through a bunch of discomfort and pain to really understand our patterns giving root to these attractions, most of us have no chance of consistently applying this kind of system…

Have a good weekend.

zdo

 

[ronfalcone]

ZDO psyche

Also let’s touch on the ‘psychology’ just a little. These are contrarian systems! Contrarians are going against the crowd. And no matter where you are on this planet – you are IN the crowds. going against the crowd is not painless.....

Neuropsychologists have found that social pain (the pain of going against the crowd, or being excluded) is felt in the same parts of the brain as real physical pain. So contrarian investing is a little bit like having your arm broken on a regular basis.” (John Maudlin). We traders have deep psych ‘issues’ going on that attracts us to ob/os systems (ala the life pervading patterns in Steenbarger’s recent article, etc but actually going to far deeper levels than anything the left brain can work on) and without going through a bunch of discomfort and pain to really understand our patterns giving root to these attractions, most of us have no chance of consistently applying this kind of system…

first, excellent points in relation to Bette's pat responses! However, I don't ascribe much, never have, to trader/psyche issues as being different from any occupation/psyche issues. As Freud suggests: "everyone has (issues) and does things for hidden, covert reasons." You say going against the crowd and being out of the crowd is painfull? Then why does shorting the market---all alone---feel so darn good!! Maybe I'm weird, but I don't find crowd acceptance one of my passions in life - not suggesting you do, but that's just me.

 

[DaveJB]

First I'd echo Ron's thanks for addressing these points.

Second, the peak difference issue - daily charts 2-3%, Dow mini IS quoted in points as 10. My 'complaint' about this is actually not so much about the size of the move - everyone knows well enough that identical tops/bottoms are not going to occur each time, it's that for it to be a divergence then when the indicator climbs the price should be level or falling - a user should not be adding the leeway to a previous price point when comparing... whatever leeway you isn't the issue, but divergence is not occurring if the indicator and price are moving in the same direction.

The Edge is described as a divergence system - 'Those leading indicators and the divergence between them and price is the crux of this strategy' as p6 says. So why do your rules allow for trades like the one on p29 where the two candles involved (according to the rules) are climbing in synch with the indicator?

Example : Indicator bottoms at 60, price is at 10825.00, indicator moves to higher bottom at 66, price should be flat or lower, it is not appropriate to allow the leeway to the upside... ie if you've set leeway at 10pts then a price of 10825 down to 10815 fair enough, even a very slight uptick perhaps, but 10835 is I would suggest not diverging. Granted you can call one sloping steeply while the other is shallower a divergence, but this is dodgy ground as the vertical scaling of indicator and price then come into play - you can't compare slopew angle between a price that is running from say 10800 - 10850 and an indicator plotted on the same time axis but normalised to a 0-100 scaling.

How you can possibly call the example on p29 a divergence (using the bars under the oscillator) is beyond me - the oscillator is setting a higher high, the price rises from 692.80 to 693.20.... yes it's inside your limits, but is it diverging? It's not good enough to say 'these are the rules and it's valid within those rules' if you are going to say the loigc behind the system is that of divergence... your rules produce non-divergent trades! Currently your latest onsite chart for users shows the Russell 1 min for 18 Jan, two lower tops on the indicator occur while the price drops (as best I can see) by 50c, this is described as 'a regular divergence'. Arfe you familiar with the term 'divergence'... would you explain to me how when the indicator falls and the price does too that it's a divergence? You'd have avoided a loser here by applying the underlying logic that is supposed the be driving this system.

Consider this, if you want to specify close price of the bar under the bump/dip in the indicator, then draw a line (available in most programs) from bottom of indicator dip to bottom of next dip (or top to top) then connect the close prices of the two relevant price bars. If both have any upward slope, or both are sloping down, they aren't diverging so no trade. If one is flat and the other slopes, or one slopes up while the other is down, you have divergence. Considering you don't NEED a double top/bottom - a divergence of the price slope from the slope of the indicators is actually what a divergence system IS, then this is a much simpler method with no confusion.

I will still take issue with the double tops etc., whilst I appreciate Bette's points on this I really don't think it's right to take existing TA terms, completely misuse them, and then say 'we're not using conventional TA so it doesn't count'... fine, so invent your own terms to describe things, don't use terms that already have well understood (for decades) meanings and use them out of context. Are you going to redefine 'price', 'up' and 'down'? (No, of course not,but to someone who has half a clue about what a double top or bottom is your misuse of it IS exceedingly misleading).

It isn't just about causing problems for those who have some TA background, every profession, art and field of endeavour has its own (often obscure) terminology and ignoring the accepted understanding of a term will cause problems every time. I would expect somebody from the professional side of trading to get it right.

New manual p11 you start discussing one of the indicators used, and explain carefully how it turns before price... a bit odd to then compare it to the price bar actually under the indicator's turn point to determine entry/exit signal I would have thought. Ron has mentioned the indicator turn should precede the price hitting its turn point, and your manual isn't above ignoring this rule to illustrate a trade - p25 blatantly so.

I appreciate the reply here, and I will reiterate an earlier statement, I think the lady is genuine in her efforts and this isn't a cynical 'fool - money = transfer' operation. I do think somebody needs to go over the manual and clear the loose ends up, but the latest one is a big improvement on what went before. I also think you need to sit down and have a darn good think about what rules you are trying to implement here. The big question in my view is whether this is a divergence system or not, and if it is then how are you going to avoid non-divergent trades. If you aren't going to avoid them, what logic ARE you following?

A system has rules which formalise the selection of trades, it is based on some sort of logic - in the case of the Edge that logic is supposed to be that of divergence. I get the distinct impression that nobody at the company end understands that a rule for a system should not contradict the logic it is built on - if your rule allows an illogical trade you don't say 'oh goody, it's profitable' you either refine the rules to eliminate the contradiction or you say 'I don't care, this shows a profit' and you redraft your logic... if your system logic ends up as 'I have no idea why this works, but it does' then that is what you tell people. Your divergence system should NOT produce non-divergent trades, it's a complete nonsense.


Given that the earlier manual referred to tops and bottoms, and now it's close prices instead, and we're using on occasion bars that are 3 or 4 bars later than the ones we would have used prior to this update(we are now using bars under the dips/tops rather than the price bars that actually create real tops and bottoms which are quite often not concurrent) are you really so confident that posted trades are in accordance with the method and have been for the past 5-6 weeks?

Either you traded the new version using the exact bar under the indicator move, and applied the 'leeway' to the closing price, or you used high and low for the price and the price bars used did not have to be coincident with the indicator move. In fact try looking at the chart on p22 of the previous manual and on p24 of the latest one - this is the first chart in the section 'Set Up needed for a Buy Signal'....

Now, what prices does your light blue line connect to show a lower low in price? (Yes, it IS a lower low, and conventionally we connect bar lows for that) ... is there some reason why the line runs from the low of the first bar (a green candle) to the close of the second? (Red candle). Call me a cynic but this makes me think you are connecting the lowest point in what is known as the 'real body' of the candle, ignoring the wick (aka 'shadow') and not appreciating that up and down candles have the close at opposite ends of the body..

Further examples for reference, from a quick scan of the next few pages (I'm not doing the whole thing) -
p25 connects the low price of two red candles, OR low of first red and a price a tick or two under a green candle's low. A double bottom would actually be determined by the low of the green candle following the first red, by the way. This example clearly does not use the candles under the indicator dips for price, the indicator's first dip is what, 4 bars before the price bar indicated?

p33 - green candle low connected to red candle close.

p35 - first bar used is one before actual indicator peak, second bar is either 2 or 3 bars before second indicator peak, if the second bar is the red one then you've connected the first bar close to the high of the second bar (which is a long red so the close is much lower) or to the close of the preciding green bar.
p41 appears to be high of green bar commected to high of red bar Your leading indicator is apparently one or two bars behind the price here.

It might be that you are just trying to highlight bars and not connect actual price points, if so that's a dangerous way to illustrate this. If that's not the case then you might like to check... my impression is that when your examples involve one up and one down candle you use the lower edge or upper edge of one or both real bodies, ignoring the fact that the open and close aren't in the same place on the body.

I'm genuinely not trying to pick holes here, although it must seem like it - in my view there is an underlying logic that can be described, and illustrated, perfectly competently and I think you ought to do that. I don't think that's been done yet, and given that the price is fairly reasonable I think it's only fair to have a manual that matches the method without contradiction... there is no point posting your trades etc and showing how well they're doing if the customers can't decode the manual to do the same.

Dave

 

[ZDO]

ronfalcone,

First let me admit to Broad Sweeping generalizations…and these misunderstandings are what happens when I try to write the book in part of a paragraph about another book. Second, for brevity I slipped and used the word 'psychology' - horrible mistake. My apologies. Wasn't talking about real 'pschology' at all...

re: “However, I don't ascribe much, never have, to trader/psyche issues as being different from any occupation/psyche issues.”
You’re right that most traders’ issues are not necessarily unique. Actually, I was trying to say is that these patterns are ubiquitous and reach across many of our ‘roles’ and acts. We would find some other way to give them expression if we weren’t doing it through trading. Archetypes and introjects start the list of ways to explore this (and neither are purely 'psychological' terms in the behavioral or even cognitive sense). Again my apologies for using the word 'psychological' when I wasn't meaning to get 'psychological' at all.

re: ”… and does things for hidden, covert reasons…”
Not to mention unconscious reasons… My point is that much of the time traders are only vaguely conscious of their active and changing energic relationships to the crowdS (note the S) else they would not need price and indicator patterns at all. In my (limited, wrong, and stupid ) thinking, the ease of shorting is an expression of being IN a crowd very much! When I hear about someone embracing the pleasures of disapproval: I think same 'trap', different bait...

All the best,

zdo

 

[DaveJB]

FWIW... just my 2c...
I don't agree with psychologists full stop. I don't think things are anything like as pat as they make out, and I think people apply a huge range of thought processes to conscious decision making and see no reason why the same should not be true of the subconscious decision process also. Two people, in exactly the same situation, display markedly different repsonses to stimuli. It's another chaotic system, small input changes cause significant variation in output.

For every x "traders" who are uncomfortable going short a particular market against the trend there are y traders absolutely glorying in it, because far from being uncomfortable in their contrarian actiivities they are convinced the crowd is usually wrong and they are simjply revelling in knowing better than the herd.

Not to mention the significant fraction who simply haven't got a clue what they did, or who is doing what.

 

[ronfalcone]

resychology

FWIW... just my 2c...
I don't agree with psychologists full stop. I don't think things are anything like as pat as they make out, and I think people apply a huge range of thought processes to conscious decision making and see no reason why the same should not be true of the subconscious decision process also. Two people, in exactly the same situation, display markedly different repsonses to stimuli. It's another chaotic system, small input changes cause significant variation in output.

I completely agree. If you can get your self a copy of a very old, but classic book called The Psychological Society by Martin Gross, it would be well worth the effort. What Gross shows with example after example is how so called psychological behaviors and the theories behind them are as ever changing as the biases of the so-called experts interpreting them. The unfortunate fact is that human behaviors are simply not as quantifiable as chemical reactions with known inputs and results. So in America, we might say that the "typical teenager" rebels against authority and bust his parents' rear ends---this is a "normal, psychological part of the maturation process." Funny, though, but if you conduct a study in Asia or a Third World Country, you would probably find just the opposite - a deep seated respect and adulation of one's elders. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no real scientific import.

 

[ronfalcone]

Dave's comments/the Edge

in objectively viewing this thread---and not claiming to be privy to the actual Edge materials in question---might it be that the problem is one of poor writing? I say this based on the ambiguity of the replies provided here by the Edge people, and as a published author of 3 books who was raked over the coals by editors and book producers for not being succinct, organizational, etc. when I THOUGHT I was being just that. It is very hard work to write well, and few people do it correctly. I have a particular bone of contention for self-published authors and writers who try and provide instructional manuals but basically, throw proper organization, writing continuity and clarity out the window.

I'm not accusing Bette of this. It's just that I've seen terrible writing in practically every trading course I've ever bought and it really aggravates me. Whenever I study a course and have to work hard at trying to figure out what the course instructor is telling me, then the course gets a D. Period. I shouldn't have to rationalize every paragraph and chart, trying to "see" what the author claims to be seeing----that's the author's responsibility full stop.

I can't speak for Dave, directly, but here is an intelligent fellow who appears to have struggled with figuring out just what The Edge is trying to convey; what does that say for others who are not experienced traders?

I hope you----any Edge moderators reading this---can appreciate the level of doubt this can cause in a prospective buyer like myself who simply wants to trade, and trade well.

 

[ronfalcone]

Edge update

just been in PM contact with 2 Edge users. True, they were referred to me by The Edge people, but I guess you have to start somewhere.

Both users---one who trades the S&P contract, the other, an EOD user raved about the system. They state that the rules are clear and concise but some tweaks may be necessary here or there. Oddly, one of the users remarked that The Edge was not as effective in *trending* markets, when up until this point, I'd heard that it was mainly chop which gave problems. You see how perspectives can and do differe widely in the world of trading.

In any case, one can easily be left with a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation where frankly, all opposing comments simply lead to a neutral, and ultimately, you have to examine the system yourself to see how YOU jibe with it.

If I go ahead and try it out, I will post results as they happen, paper or real, pro or con, to anyone who is still interested in hearing about them.

good luck,
Ron

 

[roberk]

BETTE’S RESPONSE: We suggest using a difference of 1-2% on daily charts.

MY CRITIQUE/? You are mistaken, correct? A 1-2% difference on the mini dow means a movement of between 100 and 200 points! Seems like an awful lot of slippage to deal with while waiting for a DB or TOP to emerge! I think you need to reconfigure your explanation in terms of points---say a 3 or 4 point difference between one top and another?

Ron

If that response from Bette isn't enough to show the "worth" of this system then what is?

 

[dwilyn]

Quick question. There seem to be two systems calling themselves "edge". The one this thread is dealing with and one called fractals edge at www.fractalsedge.com. Sorry-couldn't get the link in. Does anyone know anything about the fractals version? I downloaded the "quick study course" and found some of the material quite interesting, particularly in terms of their specifics relating to buy and sell signals and stop loss procedures. It is probably of more interest to an intermediate investor than advanced. Any comments? I have no connection whatsoever to the firm. Just curious.

 

[Sam_McGee]

I did a lot of investigation last fall before I bought the Edge trading system. I talked to references, checked bulletin boards etc. I wasn't sure if I would be able to interpret and make the Edge work for me. The one thing I noticed was that every day charts were being posted for the russel index futures and how they would have traded with the Edge. I figured that all I would have to do was to check my trades against the trades posted and then I could make sure I was following it correctly. Based on that I decided to buy it.

When I received it and studied it, I did some backtesting on historcal charts and found that I could only get successful trades about 50% of the time. The stop and target was the same so at that rate I was going to lose money. But I wasn't worried, all I had to do was to check my trades against the posted charts on the web site and teach myself how to use it properly. Shortly after I bought it, the web site was changed and now only about 1 or 2 days a week of the Russel charts are posted. That isn't enough for me to check my trades and learn the system properly.

I wrote and asked that they post more charts but they wouldn't do that. I wish they would reconsider posting charts every day. If it's too time consuming perhaps they could figure out an easier way to post daily trades. Even if they just posted something simple like a spreadsheet showing the trade times and the reason it would help.

 

[eminimethods_com]

Quick question. There seem to be two systems calling themselves "edge". The one this thread is dealing with and one called fractals edge at www.fractalsedge.com.

Why is it that the guy behind it hides his name? Is it because CFTC did not like his practices in the past? This could be one of the reasons, so you better do a serious DD before commiting your money and we are talking about thousands of dollars here. It's definitely overpriced for my taste.

 

[eminimethods_com]

I did a lot of investigation last fall before I bought the Edge trading system. I talked to references, checked bulletin boards etc. I wasn't sure if I would be able to interpret and make the Edge work for me. The one thing I noticed was that every day charts were being posted for the russel index futures and how they would have traded with the Edge. I figured that all I would have to do was to check my trades against the trades posted and then I could make sure I was following it correctly. Based on that I decided to buy it.

When I received it and studied it, I did some backtesting on historcal charts and found that I could only get successful trades about 50% of the time. The stop and target was the same so at that rate I was going to lose money. But I wasn't worried, all I had to do was to check my trades against the posted charts on the web site and teach myself how to use it properly. Shortly after I bought it, the web site was changed and now only about 1 or 2 days a week of the Russel charts are posted. That isn't enough for me to check my trades and learn the system properly.

I wrote and asked that they post more charts but they wouldn't do that. I wish they would reconsider posting charts every day. If it's too time consuming perhaps they could figure out an easier way to post daily trades. Even if they just posted something simple like a spreadsheet showing the trade times and the reason it would help.

Sam,

it's very hard to learn discretionary trading from the charts that have been edited with the benefit of hindsight information. This method has been around for quite a while, it was not invented by the Edge developer no matter what she claims, and it has yet to produce millionaires that you would expect based on the hype it is marketed with. The only millionaires in the making here are probably those selling this stuff.

It's sorry to hear your story, though...

Good luck next time.
Wally

 

[jsp326]

These are two completely different systems. No relation in their methods or in the people who sell them, as far as I know. The word "edge" is a very common term in trading...everyone wants to find one. I'm sure there are systems besides these that use that term in their title as well.

Quick question. There seem to be two systems calling themselves "edge". The one this thread is dealing with and one called fractals edge at www.fractalsedge.com. Sorry-couldn't get the link in. Does anyone know anything about the fractals version? I downloaded the "quick study course" and found some of the material quite interesting, particularly in terms of their specifics relating to buy and sell signals and stop loss procedures. It is probably of more interest to an intermediate investor than advanced. Any comments? I have no connection whatsoever to the firm. Just curious.

 

[Dark Hammer77]

Upgrades for "The Edge"

In an earlier thead on a different board it was mentioned that "The Edge" uses Stochs and MACD. In their latest posting of charts they have MA's and ADX on their charts. I have also read if you buy their method that you get "upgrades". Do they change indicators with the new upgrades or what?

 

[Peter36]

Staying back from "The Edge"

Hello everyone,
I bought the edge strategy from right angle trading and I consider the free advise on when not to trade provided on their website to be the only thing of any value..

 

[Dark Hammer77]

Hello everyone,
I bought the edge strategy from right angle trading and I consider the free advise on when not to trade provided on their website to be the only thing of any value..

Has anyone noticed on Bette's website that they have changed from time charts to volume charts and from showing
trades on ER2 (377 bars) to ES (1597 bars)?

I wonder if this implies that the system was not working as advertised and that is why they changed to volume charts
or perhaps they found out by testing that the volume charts were giving a higher percentage of wins or more wins per day?

Any comment on this from the traders who still use this method of trading?

If so, then thanks a lot for responding.