BB, one minute is not hyper, it is hypo. Look at the guasians. One minute guasians inside a five minute bar. But bebare, you are coming perilously close to jaxcommunication with these wicked thoughts you are having.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ES Volume Leads Price
- Thread starter Joe Doaks
- Start date
Well, maybe i have expressed my opinions of this sillimess that these papertraders are expressing when they say vol leads price. Jack is full of shit and any real trader can see that without reading the babble posts. Papertrading is easy, claiming to buy the bid and sell the ask and get filled is another world. if and when these fools ever trade real dough they will drop like flies. jack, get in the backyard dessert you live and dork those animals. .. You are a sick quack..
Psychology is not my thing, I leave that to Dr. Deco, but I cannot help but be struck by the bizarre behavior which results every time I start a thread like this. As an engineer and analyst, I know that to understand a complex dynamic structure which defies easy immediate analysis, you whang it with a big hammer to measure its impulse response. My posts are such hammers.
That is not to say that they aren't serious. The simple algorithm, since refined, of my initial post is a useful visualization tool for inspecting the codependent behavior (in both senses of the phrase) of price and volume. I have found that dicking with the algorithm to quickly flush out odd behavior to be quite a time saver in trying to understand what Jack says, and more importantly, doesn't say.
But the vehemence of the A-Team's attack on me was simply astonishing. I am a complete nobody, obviously a fool, and not worthy of the waste of time even to point that out. So why bother? At extreme length? Comme c'est etrange!
But I will point out that the number of people here who code is a miniscule percentage of the population. Most charts which are posted contain only canned studies. That speaks volumes to me about ET traders. It means that they have no way to concretize and test an original idea. This fact leads to the conclusion that they must not have any. So cut me some slack. This blind hog WILL eventually find an acorn.
That is not to say that they aren't serious. The simple algorithm, since refined, of my initial post is a useful visualization tool for inspecting the codependent behavior (in both senses of the phrase) of price and volume. I have found that dicking with the algorithm to quickly flush out odd behavior to be quite a time saver in trying to understand what Jack says, and more importantly, doesn't say.
But the vehemence of the A-Team's attack on me was simply astonishing. I am a complete nobody, obviously a fool, and not worthy of the waste of time even to point that out. So why bother? At extreme length? Comme c'est etrange!
But I will point out that the number of people here who code is a miniscule percentage of the population. Most charts which are posted contain only canned studies. That speaks volumes to me about ET traders. It means that they have no way to concretize and test an original idea. This fact leads to the conclusion that they must not have any. So cut me some slack. This blind hog WILL eventually find an acorn.
Quote from Joe Doaks:
Psychology is not my thing, I leave that to Dr. Deco, but I cannot help but be struck by the bizarre behavior which results every time I start a thread like this. As an engineer and analyst, I know that to understand a complex dynamic structure which defies easy immediate analysis, you whang it with a big hammer to measure its impulse response. My posts are such hammers.
That is not to say that they aren't serious. The simple algorithm, since refined, of my initial post is a useful visualization tool for inspecting the codependent behavior (in both senses of the phrase) of price and volume. I have found that dicking with the algorithm to quickly flush out odd behavior to be quite a time saver in trying to understand what Jack says, and more importantly, doesn't say.
But the vehemence of the A-Team's attack on me was simply astonishing. I am a complete nobody, obviously a fool, and not worthy of the waste of time even to point that out. So why bother? At extreme length? Comme c'est etrange!
But I will point out that the number of people here who code is a miniscule percentage of the population. Most charts which are posted contain only canned studies. That speaks volumes to me about ET traders. It means that they have no way to concretize and test an original idea. This fact leads to the conclusion that they must not have any. So cut me some slack. This blind hog WILL eventually find an acorn.
Okay I'll skip the 80 edges that were still on the list.
Quote from Trader666:
Actually, I've attached Jack's "bible" on the "P,V relation." How about if we do some scoring based on Spydertrader's ChartScript at the link below and see if there's anything to it?
http://www.wealth-lab.com/cgi-bin/WealthLab.DLL/editsystem?id=47311
I just downloaded the aforementioned "bible" on the "P,V relation." While it tells me nothing about the price/volume relationship I haven't assumed, rightly or wrongly, since birth, it does solve the mystery of Spydertrader, et al. For months, I'd wondered why I seemed unable to traverse a single Spydertrader/Hershey post without feeling like the subject in "The Scream." (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg)
Now, I understand. The Hershey method seeks to take that which is simple and self-evident, and make it abstract and incomprehensible. Then it adds a brace of sophistry, just to keep Mystery alive. Thank you, Trader666. My sanity is restored.
Quote from Joe Doaks:
...I know that to understand a complex dynamic structure which defies easy immediate analysis, you whang it with a big hammer to measure its impulse response.
....Most charts which are posted contain only canned studies. That speaks volumes to me about ET traders. It means that they have no way to concretize and test an original idea. This fact leads to the conclusion that they must not have any.
Amen.
Jack, I DO appreciate your efforts to rehabilitate me, since my lifetime limit psych insurance benefits ran out decades ago. I read nearly everything you write, and even understand some of it, when you're not posting just to fuck with peoples' heads. But you forget that a good therapist learns from his clients. For the past few months I have been trying to teach YOU something. I don't think I am getting through to you, so I'll try again.
We have nothing to go on but the time histories of book, trade and volume. You have ONE very well-developed and mature way to analyze those time series and to forecast the near-term future. But you seem to have an awful blind spot when it comes to recognizing and understanding anomalies. That is very hard for me to understand coming from the guy who also lives by "what wasn't that?".
I tirelessly analyze all the events that make me scream in rage "What the fuck was THAT all about?". For example, a price series is not a physical phenomenon, so it obviously is not useful to apply classical dynamics, or any of a myriad of other analytical techniques which were current even when you were in school. But what happens if you are a dumbfuck and do it anyway? It makes you think about what kind of mathematical system price MIGHT follow. Jack, I encourage you most sincerely to open your mind up to alternative ways of looking at the markets. You are heuristic to others, Jack. Be heuristic to yourself.
We have nothing to go on but the time histories of book, trade and volume. You have ONE very well-developed and mature way to analyze those time series and to forecast the near-term future. But you seem to have an awful blind spot when it comes to recognizing and understanding anomalies. That is very hard for me to understand coming from the guy who also lives by "what wasn't that?".
I tirelessly analyze all the events that make me scream in rage "What the fuck was THAT all about?". For example, a price series is not a physical phenomenon, so it obviously is not useful to apply classical dynamics, or any of a myriad of other analytical techniques which were current even when you were in school. But what happens if you are a dumbfuck and do it anyway? It makes you think about what kind of mathematical system price MIGHT follow. Jack, I encourage you most sincerely to open your mind up to alternative ways of looking at the markets. You are heuristic to others, Jack. Be heuristic to yourself.
Your views on the infinite scheme of things and how people relate to you is whatever you think it is. Is is just your viewpoint.
I find your choice of words and orientation to be rather average from a math and science point of view.
My response to you was just a technical one, primarily, that covered several of the major bases that people who will be becoming expert traders will have to consider. From it you can see that I punched up a comprehensive response that showed the what, why and how of what you put on the table.
Someone else put up the correct atribution that preceded your explorative initiative. It is easy to understand that you would not delve into the generally accepted solution and get the benefits that it affords. It actually would have been the mature and sensible thing to do.
You describe my response inappropriately.
The financial community has quite an array of technicians, and scientists who do a broad spectrum of work and they delve into many facets of the market's operation and how financial operations relate to economics, etc. They apply the full range of tools to the analysis and discovery process. They also do theoretical work and they develop models all of which overlap and some times introduce contradictions.
Presently, this community is pressing several frontiers forward.
Psychological concerns now focus on astute measurement rather than the gunslinging sports analogies. They all still constrain their efforts to the CO, however. Therapy is a requirement and its availability is lacking by several measures.
EMH is now countered with CMH and the march of technology dulls both contradictorily.
The limited breath of FA and TA is beginning to show more markedly by the introduction of SA which closes out the 21st Edition of the annual Economist World in 2007. The guest who articulates this is the inventor of the WWW.
As time passes, expert traders have to spend time being sure to cover all the bases all of the time. As HDO pointed out there are no white papers in ET and no space for them. Assembling reader panels wound be a way out deal around here.
There are many ways to make money successfully. No one way has ever gone by the boards for any reasons remotely realted to diluting or overusage. That is not going to change as the global infill of new markets and exchanges accelerates.
There is a definite transition from assessor/novice to expert and beyond. There is also a concurrent learning process regarding technological change. The third thing that goes on is the fading away of the attitude that being smart counts for very much and that the ways a smart person competes in his sphere of influence can get him by on his good looks. Ultimately, the world hierarchy devolves around money, power and information. Especially in the financial industry, bogus information has short legs. All of these processes are what takes "unbelievable" and "astonishing" out of the usage vocabulary of the post expert trader.
There is also the theme of the getters and the givers; that line is never crossed by most people. There are very few people who support the growth of others. What has to be given up by a person to be able to help others is too costly for most people.
I find your choice of words and orientation to be rather average from a math and science point of view.
My response to you was just a technical one, primarily, that covered several of the major bases that people who will be becoming expert traders will have to consider. From it you can see that I punched up a comprehensive response that showed the what, why and how of what you put on the table.
Someone else put up the correct atribution that preceded your explorative initiative. It is easy to understand that you would not delve into the generally accepted solution and get the benefits that it affords. It actually would have been the mature and sensible thing to do.
You describe my response inappropriately.
The financial community has quite an array of technicians, and scientists who do a broad spectrum of work and they delve into many facets of the market's operation and how financial operations relate to economics, etc. They apply the full range of tools to the analysis and discovery process. They also do theoretical work and they develop models all of which overlap and some times introduce contradictions.
Presently, this community is pressing several frontiers forward.
Psychological concerns now focus on astute measurement rather than the gunslinging sports analogies. They all still constrain their efforts to the CO, however. Therapy is a requirement and its availability is lacking by several measures.
EMH is now countered with CMH and the march of technology dulls both contradictorily.
The limited breath of FA and TA is beginning to show more markedly by the introduction of SA which closes out the 21st Edition of the annual Economist World in 2007. The guest who articulates this is the inventor of the WWW.
As time passes, expert traders have to spend time being sure to cover all the bases all of the time. As HDO pointed out there are no white papers in ET and no space for them. Assembling reader panels wound be a way out deal around here.
There are many ways to make money successfully. No one way has ever gone by the boards for any reasons remotely realted to diluting or overusage. That is not going to change as the global infill of new markets and exchanges accelerates.
There is a definite transition from assessor/novice to expert and beyond. There is also a concurrent learning process regarding technological change. The third thing that goes on is the fading away of the attitude that being smart counts for very much and that the ways a smart person competes in his sphere of influence can get him by on his good looks. Ultimately, the world hierarchy devolves around money, power and information. Especially in the financial industry, bogus information has short legs. All of these processes are what takes "unbelievable" and "astonishing" out of the usage vocabulary of the post expert trader.
There is also the theme of the getters and the givers; that line is never crossed by most people. There are very few people who support the growth of others. What has to be given up by a person to be able to help others is too costly for most people.