Exact Science

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Trading is like heisenbergs uncertainty principle in that you cant know everything that is going on with a high degree of accuracy. You cant know who has their finger on the trigger to sell if they are getting nervous, if someone is bluffing or not with a large order and getting ready to pull it as soon as you place your order, how many HFT computers are jumping ahead of you, or if someone is getting ready to make a large buy order because the stock has dropped enough. You really just never know who or how many people are trading on fear & greed. The best you can do at trading is find the tools to put the odds in your favor so that over time, you make more than you lose, but just like counting cards at blackjack, sometimes the cards can go against you. Nobody has a 100% win rate in trading which is why its not an exact science.
More...

this is a data seeking orientation.

By not seeking all data, you get to have an exact science system.

Take a look at inequalites, for example.

Take a look at go/no go relationships.

In making money, you are "taking". The only factor is the "offering".

In trading the deck is thin, face up, and it is never shuffled.

You either hold or you reverse. And "YOU" do not affect the play.
 
"How can something be "complete" by omitting a segment of a specific market's continuity?"



For me, the completeness test is done using logic. For you the completeness test is done using data. this means you and I do completeness differently. So this makes me wrong and this makes you correct since the standard is you and the standard is NOT me.

Thus, for me, there is a requirement to test for "completeness" at the right logical moment.

Keynes was more pointed about this but Carnap was no slouch. You may have missed the keynes requirement for insisting on an "in kind" environment.

This requirement establishes that a lot of logic has to be used to come to the logical moment. Do not think of a logical moment as a time oriented thing in any way. It is not a timing based thing.

Completeness cannot be examined except whem logic establishes potential completeness.

Use Carnap for dwelling with logic arrangements and issues. Do no be illogical under any circumstances; cover all bases.

How can any "problem solving" be accomplished if all of the data necessary to the problem isn't intact?

In my work, I use logic. My systems are logic based.

In logic, cases are involved. Systems have three logic components: structure, processes and results. A system is built to form a strtucture; the system carries out processes and the system output rsults.

For example, "taking all of the market's offer" is a segmented occurence. You state that my system deals in segments; it does, as you say. I sonetimes refer to it as "chunking". A system can have a conveyor belt that flows and has chunks sitting on it that fall into a pile at the end of the conveyor belt. I chunk pile forms during RTH.

I use about 70 degrees of freedom to "look at" and operate the structure of the system. Chunks flow out and pile up.

All most all data is logically impeded from forming any of the various degrees of freedom. What get through is amplified.

Anyone who is a scientist is used to "impeding" and "impedence".

You throw away a rimeline and replace it with dominos all lined up and spaced. Yuo have a system that throws away tons of data. You do that to get to being able to do "tests" and none of them deals with completeness.
 
"How can anything be "exact" when regular segments of the data set are discarded like unwanted puppies?"

When Carnap and Keynes are used, respectively, to build a sysem based upon logic theory and paradigm theory, then data is "handled".

I mentioned "impedence". It is as you say "puppy managing". Some puppies won't hunt so they are sold wholesale to pet stores which sell puppies to the vulnerable.

Outsource, correctly introduced another system which was segmented. You also use a system to segment chunks.

I use Dodd/Graham segmenting: continue and change. They are nutually exclusive.

So I leave a lot out by using logic techniques and, only, I deal with "end effects" of both continuation and change.

My puppies are end of continue, beginning of change, end of change, and begining of continue. Price points are in the middle as are volume peaks and troughs. Optimizing change is where it is all at so I throw out everything else.

Making money for me is taking all the offer between each optimum of change.

There is very little "optimum change" data to deal with for making optimum money in markets.
 
"Continuity of "sequences" for me means all sequences without exception."

Without exception . . . except with the exception of non RTH trades . . . right?

"Under "exact science", is where it is possible to examine rigorously all the various orders of events."

All various orders of events . . . except those that lie outside of RTH . . . right?

We may agree, at this point, that you and I are different.

I intentionally "look to see" only a few pieces and I follow a check off of the pieces. All other puppies don't hunt for me.

I lokk for points 1, 2, 3; 1, 2, 3,, etc. I see P, T, P, T P, T, P, T, P on volume during the points I typed.

Six points and 8 extremes of volume.

This is a whole cycle to me. One segment of long profits and one segment of short profits.

Logic cases are what I use to do the check off of the points and the P's and T's.

The order of events is ALWAYS the same.

What is between events doesn't matter to me since I always know that I know what is next. When it arrives, I do a "taking" and begin the next "taking".

As you say to me "without exception"... This "wihout exception" of yours is yours and I do not use any of it. It is "between" events for me and I only deal with events and their order that is always followed. I only deal with event and checking off their precise "advent".

For Moses there were two events: beginning to float and ending floating. He took two puppies of each puppy kind.

He had a device (system) that could process "floating". "END of FLOAT was what he checked off as an event. He only looked at regular floating hours. The sun and moon part did not matter to him
 
"How can all sequences be "cast in stone" and interlocking yet you feel the need to disassemble them to create your trading environment?"

I trade to make money. A routine is required for making money. I do MADA.

For anyone to do what I do, they need to build their minds using the three operators used in driving a car:spatial, movement, and patterns.

Drills treach people to put in points and peaks and troughs according to the pattern of a long or a short on a P, V chart. They log the cases and three fractals by noting the points and peaks and troughs. They also note the cases on two markets (YM leads ES). Bars form in an order of events of the cases.

10 to 12 leading indicators of price also follow an order of events that are logged as well.

The result is "chunking" each segment of profit, segment after segment all day long. experts do 20 to 40 a day and make a good multiple of the ATR daily.

As a person learns the fastest fractal 1, 2, 3; 1, 2, 3;1.. he sees that three of these form one move in the next slower fractal. The nesting builds and he trades the middle fractal.

Trading is a succession of reversals which keeps the trader always on the correct side of the market.
 
"Two example are redneck and logicprof. They do not deal in exact science in the first place so when they interrelate things it is NOT done in an interlocking sense.

First, the nick is ProfLogic. Second, what I deal in is 100% pure raw unadulterated trading data. I do not manipulate my trading environment and I damn sure don't arbitrarily omit segments of the data because I have this feeling that anything outside of RTH is "unworthy" or "noisy" so it's easier to summarily dismiss it simply because I'm too old to investigate it and learn something new.

When I started I began with Dodd/Graham. I never changed my P, V annotating except to accomodate the invention of the PC and printer. I use both.

I used logic from the getgo in the form of binary vector data. My mind became differentiated as in driving a car.

I just steer and focus as the day unfolds.

To trade multiple streams of capital in stocks and to trade the ES is just a routine. I annotate and log and I used to hand out these at the end of each day with the "carry over" for the three fractals to begin the next day.

Most people conclude that using after hours data is important. Most people use a lot of data in statistical ways, too.

I happen to use logic and cases, etc. It is foreign to most people. One advantage of what I do is that it is like driving a car.

You can't draw a cycle of P, V movements. You do not see or understand the order of events. You don't see how the nested fractals are formed as an interlocking set. Your mind is not organized in a fully differentiated way that contains the order of events for all the strings of like kind pieces. My mind is.

There is nothing at all wrong with a trader spending 10,000 hours looking at charts, etc. It is just a differnt path to take a shortcut that is very brief and has no associated noise or anomalies. Fifth graders love looking at markets and seeing the pattern and the order of events. They call it fun.
 
"We just heard tha market highs and lows occur after closes and before opens a few posts back. Contradictorarily, I suggest degapping and that continuity is maintained. In exact science terms there is not debate and what takes debate off the table is using the Scientific Method in a process of deduction.

So if market highs or lows occur during non RTH times . . . you ignore them?

Yes.
 
I'm disappointed Mack . . . oh sorry, jack. I totally understand "how you trade" and "why you trade" what you do. As I stated once before, I even when out of my way to attend one of Spyder's get togethers to get a better handle on your view of your market environment. It is a segmented system, it is not a complete system. I extract profits from markets during all operational hours not just during RTH. I'm not belittling your method because I've seen it work but do not say what I do is not exact when you have never bothered to take the time to "see" what I do. Each time you have made a comment on my trading environment you have been dead wrong. Just like you are dead wrong about the trades that occur outside of RTH.

People go through stages of developing their models. I have read nearly all of your posts with interest. It was interesting to do comparisons of the rates of trades generated. the seasonal comparison is where most contrast occurred. An average rate comparison would be about 1:4.

One thing that is important to consider as optimizing begins is to consider the window of the trade and the market's capacity. At a rate of more than 15 trades a day efficiency is measured in 1/2 of margin requirements.

My view is that you are yet to encounter the partial fill issues that are entailed. I think you are trading from an "enough is enough" poiint of view.

To avoid "jumping fractals", there is a requirement that entails examining volume as a leading indicator of price. You may have sacrificed that opportunity so far.

If you wish to discontinue "bridging" (only dealing with 1/4 of volumes signals), you will have to connect volume to price at some point.
 
Quote from charts:

Check this ... :)<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1078006>
More...

thanks for the post. It goes a long ways towards explaining the nesting of fractals using one data setr.
 
Quote from charts:

Jack, on one hand you claim any school kid could successfully trade your methods (crayola, etc.). On the other hand there are few if any people claiming to have successfully mastered your methods. Are all the others shy or stupid? ... :)
More...

The single issue concerns the mind.

As belief systems are develped in the context of growth, there are several stages where doors are closed by mind owners.

Before and after the neurological haircut given during teenage, seems to be significant.

"use it or lose it" is also at play.

Reducing the the risk of entry into the mind building is best done by lowering the first step. Potential traders usually can't do this and are uncoinscious of making small successful learning bginnings.

Look at the three moves of a trend. Kids take delight in discovering the market is NOT up/down but left/right.

They easily can see the difference btween a retrace and a reversal.

V and P only have a one to one corrspondence 2 out of three times in the order of events. Kids love to be detectives and adults have the I've been f*cked attitude.

I believe everyone has the right to know that the end of a move is comming when the bar begins. I also believe that people deserve the right to be able to time turns precisely. Neither have to do with shyness or stupidity.

There are ten cases........ How long ago did MAK put up the tables for how bars relate to one another?

Kids are "naturals" for learning. Later, people get to make choices that have consequences.

Kids choose logic and learn learn learn...... they put the pieces together.

Look at all the Q's I wasn't ask. LOL....

Is there any doubt why Moses couldn't build the Ark? Noah knew it was a binary vector problem........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top