Quote from ProfLogic:
Jack,
I prefer short answers because I was taught to be as precise as possible. My teacher, for problem solving, was H.J. Cooper of Ratheon. Our endeavors took us to many environments; manufacturing, sales, management, environmental, biological, mathematical and educational. He taught me that the only way to correctly solve any problem was to first break the problem down to its smallest parts then put it back together, piece by piece, making sure each part fits perfectly together. This way you will find the part that is causing the problem. If a part isn't a perfect fit, find out, if possible, what it will take to make it perfect. Near perfect or close to perfect wasn't an option.
I have worked hard as well over the last 15 years dedicated to finding the quirks in the equation and finding a perfect solution to them. I also agree that math is "a" tool but when a tool didn't currently exist to solve the problem of consistency in charting I had to create one. I've never been one to simply, "do what I was told".
The portable defibrillator, the artificial heart, the laser scalpel, balloon catheter, the pacemaker, the ultrasound machine, the AbioCor Heart, portable EKG's, fetal monitor and the CT scanner are all medical devices created over the last 100 years to solve a problem. The people that created these machines weren't satisfied with current technology, at the time, so they improved on specific situations solving a problem. Now are each of these devices perfect? No, but they are a drastic improvement on what was available before each was developed. People didn't get complacent with what they had, they worked hard on improving on what already existed. Will this be the end of progress for these tools . . . I hope to God not.
Your work and Spyder's work, I feel, has taken technical analysis further than the norm. I've studied the fundamentals of what you and Spyder do and I think I have a solid grasp on how you see price and the opportunities that your charts give you on each. Like the tools I've mentioned above do I think that there is any room for improvement . . . of course there is. Why did you bother to work developing your system in the first place if you didn't think you could improve on what was already out there. Do I think someone can improve on what I do . . . I hope to God so.
Your answer wasn't acceptable because it didn't answer my question. It is just that simple and nothing any more sinister Jack.
You are leaving a stone unturned by not even considering the potential of improvement on what you do. The granularity you mention, by shear definition, forces us to finely detail our focus to search for ways to improve on our situations.
Personally, I really don't see or think about anything sinister. The market has always been an open book for me. I have always enjoyed using what was available to make money by doing the critical thinking involved.
I tried to make the point that one has to deal with all things to have a wholistic solution to a problem. I did mention granularity as an item that deserves consideration.
There has never been a reason for me to shun the consideration of what appears on the table as time passes. Today you see both of us contributing to the conversation and in a constructive manner. I was asked to post a data set for some reason so I did. recently a person asked for a leading indicator of price. So I posted one in maths and in graphics. Another person comments on something that was entirely off topic and suggested I am trading in a lagging manner. I understand that the person doesn't "get it" regarding the leading indicator I suggested.
"Knowledge and Thoroughness" is the Motto of RPI; I "get it".
the pattern applies all the way down to the one tick range of fractal monitoring, analysis, decision making, and action.
D has five components in its finite set; they are: Wait, HOLD, REVERSE, enter and exit. SKO asked me several questions on the "window period" for doing a reversal. I explained in several ways how to deal with the "first" and "last" oportunity and all of the times inbetween.
I suggested that a person trading a fractal NEEDS to deal with the faster fractal and the slower fractal surrounding the nested trading fractal. I explained that there is overlap of one pattern with another. I explained the explicite 3 to 1 relationship of the nested fractals.
Rhetorically, speaking, it could be said that I might be waiting for a question that I have not been asked in four generations. I am smiling about it. I am always asked new questions.
For the humor of it, there is no limit on the earning capacity of a trader. If a person is a full time trader, then it is because he has to trade full time for personal economic reasons. The reasons probably relate to the small percentage of the market's offer he is taking. He probably takes so little because he cannot take more. It is offered and he does not take it. So he HAS to trade full time to make ends meet for his lifestyle.
I agree with you that I am not the smartest guy you will ever meet. And certainly, I do not know how many people have died on my watch. One thing is evident, however. I can take all the crap handed to me and stand by my knowledge and thoroughness and experience to get the job done.
Again, I do not regard anything you have said or recommended as sinister or negative or anything abot my shortcomings which I have.
Our approach is the product of thoroughness and is complete and fully articulateable. We stand by our view that there is no noise or anomalies in the market. We regard it as a wholy logical and finite logic application by the use of Boolean Algebra. Probability does not apply where the decision set has just two elements.
Where I you, I would put in some time in a Boolean orientation. also it may be productive to look are the cases for price, volume and price and volume. By doing this you get to a single pattern, the pattern applies symmetrically to either trend, trends overlap and fractals are nested in a three to one ratio. Concluding volume leads price is uncommon among most people.
Choosing the HS amd PM came from following the dictates of the market. That is a priori since the market is always correct.
Most people associated with trading the markets do not agree with what we espouse. One thing is for sure, everyone gets the consequences of their decisions. The math of the markets is Boolean Algebra.
