Iterative Refinement

Quote from romanus:

1540 yesterday made a VE which is usually followed by accel traverse - one can consider the situation yesterday eob as sequence not being completed. Today we get a new p3 of the channel and what took us there looked to me like 5 min es level traverse if you ignore the gap. Then the first traverse of the day also created a VE of the channel (1105, which now became a new p2 of the channel) and as such another sequence of traverses followed because the p2 of the channel now migrated to 1105 today. A variation of the comment Spydertrader made that in the absence of sequence completion we fan. Can't find anything wrong with logic above - anybody is welcomed to take a stab at proving the contrary.
More...

Interesting logic romanus. A few questions:

1. Where's the P2 of the 5 min ES traverse?
2. I don't know what you mean by an accelerated traverse or what it looks like. I've heard this term used before by you and others and actually asked you what it exactly means. You said it follows a VE. Can you show me an example? Are VE's ALWAYS followed by this sort of traverse? How can you say the sequence is incomplete if you don't have this accelerated traverse? What is the fractal level of an accelerated traverse?
3. Are you saying that the 15:45 JW I change signal is invalid?
4. If the channel starts at 15:35 on 3/4 and then gets shifted upwards today then why can you say that the 'new' P2 for the channel is at 11:05? I understand that that is where the P2 for today's downchannel but today's downchannel is distinct from yesterday's downchannel.

OR

Are you saying that the construction which began at 1:20 PM yesterday is a channel NOT a traverse; that there was a VE of this channel; that because this VE wasn't followed by an accelerated traverse then 15:45 is a P2 for the smaller channel and then the rest of the stuff you talked about follows from the 'new' P3 you've created?

This whole argument hinges on the 'accelerated traverse' thingy and so another question would be what would things have looked like if there was an accelerated traverse yesterday?

Great stuff.

lj

PS: Talk to you in the AM. I've had enough of this stuff for today.
 
While you guys are trying to figure out where the lines go, I just want to demonstrate that not only can you know intraday reversals in advance, but you can tell the reversals and directions way into the future with precision.

Jack was going to post the future movements on the Dow... except when pressed he wouldn't.

Here's an example of cycle change dates and wave direction. SCT is such a narrow minded and incomplete market view but Jack has convinced you that it is brilliant.

For reasons sake Jack, demonstrate it!
 

Attachments

Pretty impressive yoohoo. Original work of yours, or no? Is it applicable to trading intraday equity index futures? If so then I'm with gooch. Set up a site and start laying it down - for free, of course.

What we are doing in this particular discussion, lines and such, has at its base, a set of core principles and it is through the use of these tenets that we are attempting to understand what appears to be an anomaly. It may turn out not to be so. C'est la vie, if so. What should not be missed is that through the empirical application of the method it is possible to deal with the problem.

Put another way, even if we do not figure out exactly why or how the situation arose, if indeed it did, we don't need to know in order to be able to take care of it.

lj
 
And...
Give people your IM address and type how your system works for free.
Give people your cell phone and talk with them when they get into trouble for free.
Hold meetings to show how your system works for free.
Provide example after example after example of how your system works for free.
gooch87
 
Quote from ljyoung:

Pretty impressive yoohoo. Original work of yours, or no? Is it applicable to trading intraday equity index futures? If so then I'm with gooch. Set up a site and start laying it down - for free, of course.

What we are doing in this particular discussion, lines and such, has at its base, a set of core principles and it is through the use of these tenets that we are attempting to understand what appears to be an anomaly. It may turn out not to be so. C'est la vie, if so. What should not be missed is that through the empirical application of the method it is possible to deal with the problem.

Put another way, even if we do not figure out exactly why or how the situation arose, if indeed it did, we don't need to know in order to be able to take care of it.

lj
More...

Hi lj, Is it original – to a degree yes.

Is it applicable to trading intraday futures? It’s applicable to trading anything in any time frame.

Give it away for free? There are 1400+ posts… I explain up to a point, be my guest.

I understand your core principles – it’s couched in Jack-speak but it’s not difficult for any experienced trader to see it’s badly flawed. But don’t take my word for it – ask Jack for a live demonstration of x3 and don’t accept any excuses. Don’t!

This is what empirical application means, and not a student trying to prove a teacher is correct by attempting to understand what seems to be an anomaly. There is no empirical evidence in your work, only hit and miss trades from someone else’s techniques that Jack built his work on. Where Jack deviates it’s mostly fog.

Believe me, trading at a poor level requires lots of psychological crutches and hospitalisations. Trading at an advanced level is not about having a differentiated mind, it’s about knowing what works by proving what works. The mind follows. It knows you know and not the other way about.

If you think you know but then when you try to prove it, it doesn’t perform… it’s not a mental problem, it is you fooling yourself. That is one hellish bad mindset to develop.

No empirical proof? No live trading? Never seen x3? Been sold on a mind game? Come on, do you really need me to tell you what a sucker is?
 
I'm glad that you have found a methodolgy that works for you, yoohoo (really).

Regrettably most of your post is spent bad-mouthing Jack, Spyder and by implication, all the other Hershey practitioners who have mistakenly found merit in the method. You set yourself, intellectually-speaking, above the collection of witless drones (the members of this and all the other Hershey threads) by pointing out that, in your experience, as an advanced and savvy trader, the core principles of the method, of which you have an in depth appreciation and understanding, are flawed and worthless.

Alas and alack, I beg to differ. They work just fine and if you choose not to believe what I have said, that's OK by me. That being so, it will come as no surprise that I won't be taking the time to learn your method. I have no need or interest, excellent method though it may be.

As for your redefinition of empiricism, please, redefine it. 'Webster's' or the 'New Heritage' are good places to start or you can take the opinion of an experienced empiricist - moi, that what you have said is specious at best.

It's almost time for the midday, weekend, ritual, "Circle of Knowing" ceremony beloved by all members of the Hershey cult, in which after an hour or so of chanting and whirling about, a hapless member of the B-team is asked if he'd like to join us for lunch. So as Eric Idle once said, "Come on. Follow me. Join in the fun."

lj
 
Bad mouthing Jack? Lj it’s SCT I’m discussing. Spider? No mention of him. Bad mouthing the rest of you – more like attempting to provoke critical thinking.

Flawed – of course just look at your posts. Worthless – of course not – because it is based on core techniques that work but which Jack adds froth and fog to.

I don’t believe in talk – I believe proof. Empirical proof. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

SCT will not stand up to empirical proof. It is theoretical. As you say, you are attempting to understand what appears to be an anomaly but through empirical application it is possible to deal with the problem. Where is the empirical evidence that you can consistently and not haphazardly deal with the problem?

However, I’ve rattled the cage to see if there’s anyone that would ask for empirical proof that SCT does what Jack claims, but the theory is more appealing than the results.

You guys continue enjoying differentiating your minds and figuring out where to draw lines. If that’s where you get your kicks, carry on :)
 
Quote from yoohoo:

Bad mouthing Jack? Lj it’s SCT I’m discussing. Spider? No mention of him. Bad mouthing the rest of you – more like attempting to provoke critical thinking.

Flawed – of course just look at your posts. Worthless – of course not – because it is based on core techniques that work but which Jack adds froth and fog to.

I don’t believe in talk – I believe proof. Empirical proof. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

SCT will not stand up to empirical proof. It is theoretical. As you say, you are attempting to understand what appears to be an anomaly but through empirical application it is possible to deal with the problem. Where is the empirical evidence that you can consistently and not haphazardly deal with the problem?

However, I’ve rattled the cage to see if there’s anyone that would ask for empirical proof that SCT does what Jack claims, but the theory is more appealing than the results.

You guys continue enjoying differentiating your minds and figuring out where to draw lines. If that’s where you get your kicks, carry on :)
More...

Empiricism means doing something which works without understanding why it works. I hold a double doctorate with a PhD in inorganic biochemistry and an MD with an Internal Medicine specialization. I really do know WTF I'm yakking about and the more you say the more it becomes apparent that you don't.

So come on and join us for lunch.

lj

Quickly, before perseveration sets in. We can help you yoohoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top