gfg1 wrote:He left about 2 weeks ago, saying something along the lines that people were not helping code fast enough for his liking.
I doubt very seriously that's what I actually said.
SignalBender wrote:I'm checking out of Kreslik. I need to get some important work done and it does not look like I'll be getting much support here for that work.
Which reads different, sounds different and leaves not much to the imagination. So, proper context is always important - else it leaves the wrong impression.
Somebody told me that this thread was a buzz with speculation. I'll correct the record here to make all subsequent speculation moot.
My first post on Kreslik was a humorous attempt to let TRO and other MQL coders/developers, that I was interested in getting my system converted into MQL - of course that project would never have been public under any circumstances and would have involved both your attorney(s) as well as mine. If you did not have an attorney(s), then I would have suggested (at some point) that you hire one to protect your rights - as mine would most definitely be protected.
After learning more about MQL, I realized that it does not have the facility to properly (efficiently) deal with the full architectural requirements of the prototype and that ultimately, I'd be better served by doing the conversion in a true OOP environment - which was something that I had been contemplating since the beginning of the project, more than eight ( 8 ) years ago.
Given the size and scope of the system, I decided to try to at least get some of the early generation core components (those that do not involved the use of metadata calculations or decision tree algorithms) such as Omega, TCD, TR, DV, Si, A4 and A5, translated into MQL, if possible. Still not sure whether or not MQL could handle it. So, I posted the first indicator on this forum, not just for TRO to code, but for anyone here with good MQL skills. Eventually, TRO posted his rendition of the code. Though it was not absolutely correct, I still got a good look at what lower time-intervals look like using my indicator design.
I then posted additional indicator structures that basically sat, untouched by any MQL coder/developer. That assumption then was that there was no interest. I left - and began the search for a competent and honest MQL coder/developer, elsewhere.
I've got a dollar waiting on a dime here, so I needed to get things done. I'm (based on what I know about the FX statistic) most likely part of the 1% club. Meaning, I'm trading at a notional value level that few retail Traders fully understand. I am also running into the problems that all Traders who reach this level run into. Being caught between Retail and Wholesale (true Interbank).
Ultimately, I'm thinking that FXall through a PB will be the best alternative to Autobahn, BARX, Standard Chartered, UBS, etc. Although, I hear that BNY might be coming out with a new Institutional platform. The problem for me is that none of that will be based on MT4. And, here I am, trying to convert my system (or part of of it) into something that I won't be able to use when I make the change. More reason to convert the system using a true 32bit windows client that connects directly to the trade execution front or back end. FXall, is a perfect fit for such scenario, based on my research thus far.
So, the "As The World Turns" drama about me being "upset" because people did not "code fast enough for my liking," might be good for stirring up forum drama, but does not truly reflect my reality. This was always nothing more than an attempt at exploring the possibilities and now that I know a little more about MQL -vs- my system's requirements, I have a better understanding of what not to expect from MQL.
Several MQL developers have responded to posts made elsewhere for assistance and I'm currently only working with one of them at this time, as I need to get this done, so I can get back to certain other special interests of mine that have nothing to do with trading, but do rely on trading success.
There is an old axiom that says: Strike when the iron is hot.
I have another axiom that says: Just knowing about TCDs "can" improve your trading accuracy by at 20% to 30% with some fairly easily seen common sense rules wrapped around them. They are but the tip of the iceberg and they represent the signature of the market.
The FX market has structure and lots of it. Until the Trader comes to grip with that reality, they will always be guessing at less than optimal trade sequences. TCDs solve one of the biggest problems that most Traders don't even know exists - when is a particular time-interval truly oversold or overbought relative to its true direction. There is a ton of information hidden within the TCDs themselves. All most people see are "squiggly lines." You need to develop an eye for TCDs, without them you are trading in a dark room looking for a light switch that does not exist. There is no market outside of TCDs - both mathematically and physically impossible.
TCDs are like looking through a telescope at the Universe. TCDs are the Universe - nothing else exists. Everything else is fully contained within the TCD. Try trading against the one that is Dominant and you will quickly come to discover this truth. The key is figuring out which one is Dominant and which one is Subordinate and WHEN are they most likely to change polarity. Once you figure that out, then you will really drain the banks.
TCDs fully contain Gann, Elliot, Fibonacci, etc., and every other traditional TA indicator in existence. At least you now know about them. My suggestion? Study them until you get them. They are incredibly simple to calculate, but what they reveal is a variety of different ways to consistently profit from the market, when you get them understood. TCDs explain why the Rat sometimes gets caught trying to steal the cheese. The also explain why the Rat is sometimes seen as being bi-polar, or when the Rat could turn in any direction and still end up with the cheese, regardless of which direction he selects.
Make no mistake about it. There is deep hidden meaning inside these little tools and they do not reveal their secrets easily, or willingly. But, when you tap into their deeper meaning, you will find trading to be rather effortless and a whole lot less stressful.
Here's my final TCD based axiom: What goes up must come down and what goes down must come up, but before it does either, it must transition sideways, first
The word "first" in the axiom is a huge clue. Lower level TCDs must transition "first" before the market can go anywhere, up or down. A TCD Transition Specialist can make a lot of money in FX, lol. Stop looking for the "next move" and start looking for and properly identifying the necessary points of transition between them. Accomplish that task and accuracy goes through the roof.
Again, just the tip of the iceberg for those with the eyes to see, the hears to hear and the wisdom to recognize the potential.
Take care and trade well.