Do Trendlines work?

Quote from trefoil:

<i>The group I work for did remove uncertainty from the space we are using to trade.</i>

Clearly, this is logically impossible.

<i>NOW is to the left.</i>

Physically impossible. One cannot both be in the future and in the present.
You say these things, and expect, nay demand, to be taken seriously. You cover up the craziness and impossibility of what you're saying with big words.
Me, I find it difficult not to just laugh.
This was a thread with some promise until it turned into a debate all about you. If you want the true source of the anger you detect, that's it. Your ego sucks the oxygen out of this place.
More...

So try to get yourself out of the physical world. We are talking about making money. We all know data streams to us and we see the data moving on displays. We get to view turning points ahead of time on several kinds of displays. That is common knowledge.

Lets say there is one in view that is several minutes out from the present (the NOW place). First of all everyone can be looking at it if they choose. I choose to look and I choose to take it into the system and it is part of the processing.

There is no debate coming from me. You are right about everthing you believe as far as I am concerned. And have a laugh.

I am just chatting about a reality that is foreign to you. There is no need to take anything I say seriously if it causes you to not want to think about it.

I can refrain from posting quite easily. Watch me not post for a couple of days. I feel that i have expressed my views here and I am staying, roughly, on the level that others bring to the discussion.

I am just like everyone else in ET. We are simply peers by virtue of that fact that we all are different as a consequence of differing and sometimes unique experiences.

What is a trefoil anyway? Is it that tenderfoot thing in the BSA.
 
Mr Hershey:

Thank you for answering my questions. I come from disciplines where acronyms abound and have always found that when ignorant, the simplest thing to do is ask what they mean. To not ask, would be stupid of me.

A trefoil is a three-lobed structure with roots in botany, architecture and heraldry.

There is a certain poetry in what you say and for me at least, your last two posts have been the most useful.

Thank you again.

lj
 
Quote from trefoil:

I'm not saying that Mandelbrot isn't good. Merely to be clear about what it is about him that is good.
And, considering that fractals are harder than Stats 101, would fractals reward you with more money for the extra effort than Stats 101 would?
For instance, and someone else somewhere in this forum pointed this out, Wilder's RSI I have found, gives good info when it goes from below 50 to above 50, and vice versa. It also sometimes gives good info when it goes into the oversold/overbought areas that are normally defined, below 20 and above 80. But not often enough to make up for the increased trading you'd have to do to take advantage of that information, I've found.
I've also tried a few of the other ways that have been suggested for its use, and found pretty much the same thing. Some give good info, but the increased trading cost added to the increased risk eats up the incremental advantage over just using the 50 crossover to trade.
Now all of that is clear. Your results may vary from mine on this indicator, and we can go back and forth about that. By contrast, none of what Mr. H posts is at all clear about what he's actually doing. Therefore, debate is closed off, and the only thing left is to either accept what he says, or not. But none of it is either testable or verifiable.
That's what I object to.
More...

What I got out of Mandelbrot was that markets are fractal and peculiarly there appears to a periodicity of three with respect to some market phenomena (it's in The Misbehaviour of Markets).
Many traders do not use indicators basically because they are variations on a theme of time, price and volume and they are lagging.

Like Mr. Hershey I don't feel any compulsion to use Stats 101. Linear regressions are best fits to a data collection (I know you know this) and require some sort of indicator (r or rxr) to show how well they fit the data. So one must pick points to "begin and end" the data to be fitted and that of course is going to affect the fit and the "wellness" of the fit. So where one starts and stops is arbitrary and if you have found some way to do this so that you make money doing it, perfetto.

For better or worse I am from the Mark Twain school of statistics (and I have my reasons for being that way which I will not bore you with). I much prefer the "iterative model" approach which I alluded to in an earlier post.

I have spent much of my life around "academically smart" people and academics who think they are smart - more of the latter than the former. FWIW, it is my opinion that Mr Hershey is one of the smart people. The problem is he is difficult to understand sometimes (speaking for myself only) but clearly he will answer questions.

It has been my impression that there is a proprietary aspect to the way he says some things and that is totally acceptable to me. He's been doing this stuff for 50 years so I refuse to let my pride get in the way of learning as much as I can from the man.

I am eclectic by nature and have enough experience in other things to know that no one person has THE answer in any discipline. Certainly neither myself or as best as I've heard so far, Mr. Hershey, make any claim that our approach is singularly correct. I do not put myself in the same "trader class" as Mr. Hershey simply because I'm not there - yet.

To quote Andrew W. K.: "We do what we like and we like what we do".

lj
 
Quote from trefoil:
By contrast, none of what Mr. H posts is at all clear about what he's actually doing. Therefore, debate is closed off, and the only thing left is to either accept what he says, or not. But none of it is either testable or verifiable.
That's what I object to.
More...

The alternative you missed is to just do it. There is a wealth of information on this forum about the detail of Jack's methods, clue: search Spydertrader. It is well tested and verifiable. To complain that his methods are unclear is just lazy.

I suggested to you above that trendlines can be backtested - get out some crayolas - I was only half joking, btw. Instead you come back with a post on Wilder's RSI (whatever that is) and further demonstrate your state of stuck confusion.

This stuff does not have to be complicated - you certainly do not get a prize for thinking about fractals or frequency domains rather than simple geometry and repeated sequences. You've invested time and effort learning statistics - Good For You! - don't assume I and others have not, it is rather patronising.

One final thing (apologies to the thread starter): Jack needs no defending from me, but he has given his knowledge freely to myself and others who put in the effort to figure it out. You, on the other hand, are keeping your secrets to yourself for some reason. You should reflect a little on the difference in your and his character:

Quote from trefoil I don't know how to be any clearer without revealing exactly what I do, and I ain't doing that for free for you guys.
More...
 
Quote from jack hershey:

...behavioral finance is not looking at this, instead they focus on the extent to which traders are damaged by the traits that trefoil is kind enough to exhibit for us this evening. The damage is statisitcally significant in terms of the bottom line.
More...

Hilarious
 
Spydertrader,

By calculating Volume on a pro-rata basis (easier now that Medved's Quotetracker recently added an automated tool to provide the calculations), a trader simply needs to monitor the market in an effort to determine if a mode shift (continuation or change) is taking place.

Which specific tool are you referring to within QT?

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top