Fractal Theory I
- Thread starter llIHeroic
- Start date
Would you be willing to post your NQ chart for today? I would like to compare my annotations. Also, if 13:30 - 14:10 EST was FC 2 of BBT1 up, it seems to lack the complexity of FC 1 except for them both being complete sequences with 3 points and an ftt. Is that all that is required in terms of an opposite FC being equal?
Thanks for posting an image along with your question. I haven't ever mentioned or used a 5 sec chart, so I can't comment on your question about it. I can't answer your question about exhaustion unless you phrase it more specifically either.
I see BBT 3 failing to maintain volatility, as well as the container which is forming the last Dominant movement of BBT 3 failing to maintain volatility as well.
Also, there is an active lateral going into the bar you labeled ftt, so you may be applying a certain parameter to an incorrect context.
I see BBT 3 failing to maintain volatility, as well as the container which is forming the last Dominant movement of BBT 3 failing to maintain volatility as well.
Also, there is an active lateral going into the bar you labeled ftt, so you may be applying a certain parameter to an incorrect context.
In your snippet labelled Tape Exhaustion you state “we need a failure to match or exceed volatility on tape and every smaller fractal within it…” So in my chart, if bar 1 through 4 is a complete tape, bar 4 meets that requirement. On the other hand, I think the sequence from 61 down is not a tape but rather a BBT. I assumed that a BBT would exhaust the same way as a tape.
I looked at the 5 second chart to try to see if bar 47 could be exhaustion that wasn’t visible on the 5m chart. So I thought possibly bar 46 killed the lateral as an ob spanning bar and since it was ibv it or 47 could have been exhaustion bar.
I see now that BBT3 fails to maintain volatility as it advances and that its fc3 is less than fc1. So rather than looking at a single bar I should see how the dominant moves behave as the sequence progresses?
I looked at the 5 second chart to try to see if bar 47 could be exhaustion that wasn’t visible on the 5m chart. So I thought possibly bar 46 killed the lateral as an ob spanning bar and since it was ibv it or 47 could have been exhaustion bar.
I see now that BBT3 fails to maintain volatility as it advances and that its fc3 is less than fc1. So rather than looking at a single bar I should see how the dominant moves behave as the sequence progresses?
Attachments
Yes, you have the right idea. The reality is that price and volume fluctuations are continuous in nature. We can view them through segmented intervals of whatever length we choose, but the splicing of the data has absolutely no significance to the operation of the market itself.
This is why I believe it is important not to try to develop endless lists of rules to try to frame the operation of the market, but to study and differentiate sequences and contexts with the goal of becoming intimately familiar with the actual tick by tick movement of the various trends, how the momentum of the trends ebbs and flows during their lifespan, and how things look when all of the sequences simultaneously reach exhaustion in a specific direction only to begin again in the other.
This is why I believe it is important not to try to develop endless lists of rules to try to frame the operation of the market, but to study and differentiate sequences and contexts with the goal of becoming intimately familiar with the actual tick by tick movement of the various trends, how the momentum of the trends ebbs and flows during their lifespan, and how things look when all of the sequences simultaneously reach exhaustion in a specific direction only to begin again in the other.
"I am not interested in meeting demands for proof or debating the validity of these materials. I feel the burden of obtaining sufficient proof or judging these concepts as incomprehensible and/or false resides on each individual for themselves."
Why not? Why can't you state a formal hypothesis about what your fractal theory is and subject it to scientific rigor? "Sufficient proof" should go beyond individual judgement and offer repeatable results to even be considered anything more than a theory, or worse, one man's hallucination of how prices evolve through time. You put forth the theory, therefore the burden is on you.
I understand you are trying to show examples to provide this proof, but it comes off as hand waving and a bit like shamanism. Can you show any math to back up you theories? It seems to be simply another pattern recognition approach. If a pattern worked in the past, it should work in the future, repeatably. If it doesn't, then something is wrong with the underlying theory. Do you have any back-test results which we could examine, or perhaps a P/L statement (audited of course)?
Why not? Why can't you state a formal hypothesis about what your fractal theory is and subject it to scientific rigor? "Sufficient proof" should go beyond individual judgement and offer repeatable results to even be considered anything more than a theory, or worse, one man's hallucination of how prices evolve through time. You put forth the theory, therefore the burden is on you.
I understand you are trying to show examples to provide this proof, but it comes off as hand waving and a bit like shamanism. Can you show any math to back up you theories? It seems to be simply another pattern recognition approach. If a pattern worked in the past, it should work in the future, repeatably. If it doesn't, then something is wrong with the underlying theory. Do you have any back-test results which we could examine, or perhaps a P/L statement (audited of course)?
Simply put; because I don't feel like it.
I reject your premise that the burden of proof lies upon myself. I have no vested interest whatsoever in convincing anyone of this theory's validity.
Additionally, come to think of it, I view it as a peripheral benefit that the interest of those who are unwilling to conduct their own personal testing and study before making a conclusion pertaining to the value of these materials is effectively deflected by the policy.
Last edited:
Actually it's because you have no theoretical foundation upon which to base your ideas or provide any scientific rigor. Good day!
Anyone who makes the effort to apply the logic and construct the sequences in the manner described can see that the validity of this “theory” is self-evident. In the attached snippets the volume differences are very small so I would like to know if my logic has been applied correctly, especially as regards building tape 3.
