There are implications and inferences that I am doing something wrong. Certainly it has been proven abundantly that I cannot write.
Thus, practically no one reads what I write. These non readers have every word I have written picked apart and use the appropriate quotes to "prove" that something can't be done and subtend it with statistically insignificant extremely focussed non scientific information.
I escaped from the mantras of the financial industry's Conventional Wisdom 50 some years ago. The consequence, as Jerry points out, is that I use a broad based authority from many fields outside of the Financial Industry and its CW's and abundant myths.
Most of what people read today was written well after my beginnings. My story is a uniquely colored one and has had many well known players appear and dissapear along the way.
My indicators are uniquely tuned to deal with the facts of the realtionship of volatility magnitude to trend slopes (rate of change of price over time). The close of a bar has nothing to do with the time of a trade, either. By knowing the relationship of market variables (volume leads price) and using the P, V relationship in a non probabilitstic setting, I have stepped a great distance away from the Conventional Wisdom. I know the CW down cold and I know what others are speaking of when they contribute. Usually I wait 10 pages before I contribute.
I represent, to many people who use inductive methods and follow the CW, a type of person who is a messenger. "Shoot the messenger" is a very good idea for most people regarding me. Science and using deduction exclusively is very different than CW and its sales and fee based inductive quasi system.
Read each paragraph of TZ's post and find the "flaws" in each. See how, by not doing the "work" to learn deductively and thoroughly, a person winds up. Take another person who dealt with ideas and their verification. After editing my contribution, he reitierated his idea given freely, could not be backtested. The moderator removed my post; the OP edited my post of the test criteria and said what remained could not be back tested. I call this turn of events, humor ,simply because it is humor.
In terms of TZ, he should check in with the SEC to see how they process reacords of significant traders and cite them for things they think traders are doing. The facts are and have been proven, that a trader's profile can look like something it isn't by the SEC standards. The people who were fined and who had to make statements in relation to my successes, where out of line including the SEC, for which they apoplogized for their ignorance. Ignorance is the word. If you are criticising someone as has been done here regarding me, you better check and see if you are an ignorant criticiser.
The paradigm I use is out of the box in terms of CW and its myths. In those terms and standards, what I do is unbelievable and astonishing. That is not going to change. You CW people have a lousy standard based on inductions and betting on the future and stupidly predicting and depending on stupid prediction. I do not gamble, you do.
The markets have no noise nor anomalies. Markets are huge huge repositories of capital continually offering and that offer is always available for the taking.
