Exact Science

[ProfLogic]

Quote from jack hershey:

Is there any doubt why Moses couldn't build the Ark?

You can not dismiss my questions by simply saying that you use logic to replace actual data. It doesn't fly. I'm not someone you can talk down to like every else who disagrees with you.

Logic runs through my veins. You can't solve ANY specific logic problem without having all of the ingredients to that specific problem. Contact Warren Goldfarb at Harvard, he should be a good source to confirm that minor point for you or is he an idiot you wish to tlak down to as well?

I didn't say you or your method was wrong. I know what you do and why you do it but it is absolutely not the end-all-be-all nor is it the ONLY system that works.

Please stop commenting on what I do seeing that you are absolutely clueless to how I construct my trading environment.

I used to have respect for you but that just disintegrated. I at least bothered to learn your environment, you can't even offer that simple courtesy.

 

[outsource]

Quote from jack hershey:


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.

Is the term 'chunking' related to NLP? If yes, don`t you have side effect with 'chunking' in case if you are using multiple timeframes. The side effect maybe an appearance of some unnecessary 'intruders' while the level of the data remains the same. Or are you 'chunking' within 'single timeframe zig-zag' of RTH?

 

[outsource]

Quote from ProfLogic:

I used to have respect for you but that just disintegrated. I at least bothered to learn your environment, you can't even offer that simple courtesy.

íó òû òâàðü êàíåøíî...

 

[outsource]

Quote from jack hershey:
It is hard for most to discover that there are so few pieces and that they are so precisely described.

A Precisely described full set of minimal pieces form an interlocking system that is fully idffierentiable.

'Closing price vs. daily ranges: Market highs are usually indicated by a market closing at or near the high of the day. Market lows are usually indicated by a market closing at or near the low of the day. The closing price vs. daily range relationship is interesting to study, because it generally "feels" very bullish when a market closes on its highs and it "feels" very bearish when a market closes in its lows. When in reality, this is usually an indication that the market is poised to change direction.'

Is that what you mean??

 

[jack hershey]

See below; I parsed your response.

Quote from ProfLogic:

You can not dismiss my questions by simply saying that you use logic to replace actual data. It doesn't fly. I'm not someone you can talk down to like every else who disagrees with you.

My effort was to answer your questions. It didn't work out for some reason.

That can happen.

I never expect anyone to agree with me; if they do and they want to pursue any part of it, in the past I have tried to accommodate them with answers to their questions.

There are many many successful ways to trade. Systemic trading is very popular with those who have a science orientation.

Most exchanges by participants are peer exchanges. It is simply true that everyone brings something different to the table. Mostly, exchanges fill in unique details flowing from one person to another. It is a bi lateral process.

One aspect of ET is that a person can go to the list of posts of another person and simply follow that person’s posts to explore that person's orientation to trading.

Sometimes there are missing pieces. If so an enquiry can be made. Usually the questions are answered and thus the missing pieces get filled in.

I apologize for misinforming you. What I tried to suggest was that I looked at the market as a problem to solve. I did SA (Systems Analysis). This took apart the market into pieces. Them I put the various functional pieces back together to make a whole system. It is hierarchical so the groupings of pieces are under various principles and sub principles all the way down to the market granularity.

Once I had this system; I used market data as an input and get segments of profits (chunks) as an output.

A few yeas back a lot of people were comparing system to system performances. I was one of them. I compared my system characteristics to others and vice versa. The spectrum became well known at that time.



Logic runs through my veins. You can't solve ANY specific logic problem without having all of the ingredients to that specific problem.

You are correct. We chose differing problems. I chose to work as dictated to me by the markets.

The Present is where the market operates so I just worked at that contextual place. I used containers that have right and left boundaries under conditions of non stationarity as dictated by the market on each fractal of the market as dictated by the market.

Thus I met your requirement to have all of the market dictates al of the time for the contextual place.

I put data through a system. As it goes through the structure formed of fixed logic additional degrees of freedom come into being. All 70 degrees are there in parallel.

At any time I am conducted to the pertinent subset ( I call it steer and focus) where that subset is allowing me to check off the order of events that is in vogue and specifically the approach of an event as it is characterized.

There are no surprises and as you have seen posted, I can list these events a day prior to their occurance (I did 17 events in order, recently, for example) and I can give the major ones at their time of occurrence within 5 to 7 minutes a day ahead of time. This is not making anything dull for me; it just makes it routine and eventful.


Contact Warren Goldfarb at Harvard, he should be a good source to confirm that minor point for you or is he an idiot you wish to tlak down to as well?

Thank you for the input. You are implying I treated you as an idiot. So I apologize to you and any others who got that message. What I did was not important in the infinite scheme of things. I just worked through a problem and got a precise approach to the problem.

For anyone to understand it, I recommend experiencing the learning process associated with it. Doing the associated drills is a lot of fun and gaining a fully differentiated mind is a consequence. You trade as if you were driving a car.

I didn't say you or your method was wrong. I know what you do and why you do it but it is absolutely not the end-all-be-all nor is it the ONLY system that works.

No, it isn't. Most people determine that and just take away what they deem they want. Sometimes it is sufficient for them other times they just add bits and pieces to their approach. Your system is incompatible with mine and its pieces. Thus, there is very little you would want to make use of. It does not engender any feelings in me either way it goes for you or anyone else.

Please stop commenting on what I do seeing that you are absolutely clueless to how I construct my trading environment.

Agreed. It is a good idea for me or others to not interfere with you or anything you do. I only answered your questions in the manner you suggested because you asked me to. this new request is easy to handle for me, as well.

I used to have respect for you but that just disintegrated. I at least bothered to learn your environment, you can't even offer that simple courtesy.

Good. I am sorry that I did not extend a sufficient courtesy. I did try to answer your questions in the context of their query. I was able to garner the fact that you do not agree with the context in which I work. Sometimes it is difficult to explain things to respond to questions where the questions form a viewpoint that is not malleable.

In trading, there is no debate; many ways are possible and each has its performance and iterative refinement possibilities. Asking questions and having discussion is usually possible. When it isn't possible; then it all goes away. Good Luck,

 

[jack hershey]

Quote from outsource:

Is the term 'chunking' related to NLP? If yes, don`t you have side effect with 'chunking' in case if you are using multiple timeframes. The side effect maybe an appearance of some unnecessary 'intruders' while the level of the data remains the same. Or are you 'chunking' within 'single timeframe zig-zag' of RTH?

"chunking" was an old term I used long ago. It referred to the profit segments. they come one after another as tangible portions whose size corresponds to each separate offer of the market.

Re NLP, I found that when I was transferring information, it was always good to have a picture in mind.

NLP is a good thing and its users have helpful advantages if and when it is possible to give something to someone. I am oriented to Tad James mostly since Liz is formally trained in NLP and several associated practices.

Her culminating training is to be trained as an instructor for Deepak Chopra. We spent a few days at Enchantment and surrounds; Deepak uses it as a location and I had done a couple of trail design and builds in the area (Munds mountain) over the last 20 years or so.

there are several considerations of multiple timeframes or multiple ratios of bar durations. I mentioned two ET examples for that reason.

Nesting of fractals was precluded by both of those approaches.

Logic demands "in kind" for one set of reasons and a system (MADA) of reason makes other demands.

The market dictates the logic, the math and the paradigm basis. As I mentioned MAK posted the market matrices that determine the basic logic context. Seasonal variations are handled by using updated tables.

Concurrent counting of nested orders of events provides an everpresent precise understanding of the trading context.

On a principle level matter dictated by the markets is the binary vector precision of decision making after both monitoring and analysis. Getting to the third zone of the system (decision making) requires that almost all of the degrees of freedom be engaged prior to deciion making in one logic way or another.

In the mind, NLP is there via the work in the learning process; externalities are displayed systemically, however, to facilitate the work of the learning process.

Why set up conflict by doing either arbitrary display mistake?

Why destroy the precision and sensitivity that is possible?

This IS the the paradox of trading. Almost all people destroy the potential for successful trading by setting up arbitrary conflicts.

Fifth graders would NOT set up multiple timeframes. They would not make them in a fixed ratio of any sort.

As a person discovers the nesting of fractals; the person lets go of arbitrary constraints (if any) simply because he does not want to destroy the potential of the market's offer.

Nesting of fractals as a term is redundant and makes you smile. Deo the order of events principle STANDOUT strongly enough if just the word fractal is used.

As you saw "fractal" was destroyed by RN and the other person and they did it arbitrarily. Not having fractals takes away the "order of events" principle.

When it dissappeared, for others, then conversation about trading becomes more and more narrowed. As it occurred, there was no common ground nor anything else.

The path of a person to successful expert trading is filled with pictures. NLP, if part of the path, is done so the learning is most compatible with the mind and how the mind grows itself by adding inference so the senses can contribute to the inference and have the sum be perception.

When you commented on casting aside other displays, you eliminated the candlestickness of trading . That was very cool. As children grow older they change how they describe things. This shifting is like many doors closing one after another. As nature plays less and less a role in perception and the built environment plays more and more a role, then a person becomes more and more disconnected from nature and natural occurances.

Personally, I went through three phases of reading the papers: WSJ, CBD, and IBD. Sort of the P, V; money; and then A/D phases. It is so cool to have lived out of the box, institutionally speaking, all of my life.

Have fun......

 

[ehorn]

Quote from jack hershey:
Not having fractals takes away the "order of events" principle.

Have fun...... [/B]

These principles (nesting and order of events) is so very powerful.

As always, Thanks for all your contributions Jack.

 

[PTVtrader]

Quote from jack hershey:


I believe everyone has the right to know that the end of a move is coming when the bar begins. I also believe that people deserve the right to be able to time turns precisely.

Quote from jack hershey:
There are no surprises and as you have seen posted, I can list these events a day prior to their occurrence (I did 17 events in order, recently, for example) and I can give the major ones at their time of occurrence within 5 to 7 minutes a day ahead of time.

So which one is it?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from jack hershey:


...Most people cannot understand my commentary. ..

Dear Jack. At one point I thought you just made up crap to post, but more and more i'm thinking you found your stuff written in an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic dialect on gold tablets buried in your back yard. Tell, me. Am I on the right track here, and if so did you do the translation by yourself, or did you have help from say an angel that visited you?

 

[jack hershey]

Quote from PTVtrader:

So which one is it?

The day before you are within 5 to 7 minutes.

As that day arrives and the sequence of trades begins, the precision becomes very very exact.

when you review the calls I mentioned, there was a period where a loop could have occurred. The preciion of calling the loop is there a day in advance and, again, as the day actually unfolds, you always know that you know WMCN and doing the monitoring and analysis leads to precion during the window in the sequence.

I'm sure your snippets are helpful to others. they certainly are helpful to me in terms of clarifying that there is no either or.

What is very pragmatic about trading and optimizing taking all of the segments of the market's offer is that an ultra expert trader always has a set of degrees of freedom before him or in an ATS to ALWAYS be CERTAIN based in finite math and ono probabilistic information theory.

Good luck in getting up to speed.