Iterative Refinement

Quote from ljyoung:

..
The starting point for the traverse and the channel are not the same.

lj
More...
yes, they are
27ymkoo.jpg

taken from this attatchment
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2210216
of this post
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2213848#post2213848
 
Quote from ljyoung:

That's why I mentioned the slope. If it goes negative then you would HAVE to have a tape break. What R/R seemed to be saying, I don't know if that it what he was saying and hence the question, was that you could fan as long as the trend was still going up. So maybe a lower high but higher low kind of thing.

lj
More...
Sorry guys - I was trying to choose my words carefully. I said "Discretion is also used if a tape's trend is continuing with bars of decreasing volume and flattening slope."

I didn't mean to imply enough deceleration to cause a significant tape break.

I'm looking for some examples to post tomorrow. Sorry for any confusion.

Lj - here are more examples of fanning the tapes to a flatter slope.
 

Attachments

Quote from R/R:

Sorry guys - I was trying to choose my words carefully. I said "Discretion is also used if a tape's trend is continuing with bars of decreasing volume and flattening slope."

I didn't mean to imply enough deceleration to cause a significant tape break.

I'm looking for some examples to post tomorrow. Sorry for any confusion.

Lj - here are more examples of fanning the tapes to a flatter slope.
More...

Thank you R/R. Catch you tomorrow.

lj
 
Quote from guavaman:

Rick,

Wouldn't an IBGS bar, by virtue of its construct, not close beyond a tapes LTL?
More...
right - but I was referring to fanning to an IBGS bar with increasing volume. It will have a change in mode.

I am still looking for examples as it is hard to articulate all the possibilities.
 
Quote from R/R:

right - but I was referring to fanning to an IBGS bar with increasing volume. It will have a change in mode.

I am still looking for examples as it is hard to articulate all the possibilities.
More...
Example
 

Attachments

Quote from ljyoung:

Thank you Jack for your interest. You are quite correct when you say that we do not share a common view on the utility of rhetorical questions or process learning.

With respect to assembling a set of rules let me say this. We have recently been talking about the discussion Spyder had with some of the crew at the NYC Expo concerning the construction of tapes. Now perhaps I'm missing the point but stating something to the effect that "You only draw an accelerated tape when the close of the price bar is beyond the LTL of the previous tape.", sounds suspiciously like a rule.

Now it may well be and probably is the case that there is some underlying essential truth, dare I say rule of the market, which if someone possessed it would allow them to 'unconsciously' know that this would be so without having to think about it. Let me go further and say that I know that this is the case. What you and I don't agree on is how one gets to this state of mind.

So when you tell me that what I have to do is the 'circle' drill you described, my first question, if I knew nothing, would be what are the tells that I'm supposed to be getting. How can I develop trust if I don't know what the tells are? and blah and blah.

Well I do know somethings and one something is that pace is the leading indicator. Another is that WMCN and IBGS are the prime considerations of the SCT method. I understand that context and signals are inextricably linked.

So what I'm trying to do Jack, in a way which is clearly quite different from what you espouse, is to reach that state of mind, that mental condition by applying tried and tested rules of scientific judgment on the material at hand. Science is based on rules and definitions and their application to discovering the unknown. All theory is subject to experiment. Period. Experiment validates new ways of thinking

I have been battling the status quo/CW bullshit mindset all my life but I would not say that my way of doing it is the only way. I am absolutely sure that there are others. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I hold your thoughts in high esteem. It's your teaching method that I cannot accept.

lj
More...

I had the same experience you are having now. Science is the only rational approach.

I see "tells" as acceptable working data. Science has to be used correctly and it can be done in any way available to a person.

The end result for anyone can be a fully articulated system.

I found out, at the time I found out, that using an 024 or 026 card punch and a mainframe was not as effective as using my mind. As technology changed and generations of people completed their learning, things were done differently and the same results occurred for them as for me.

What I saw in your post was a few unscientific aspects. The elipses did not cover the time interval by including the variables. I concluded from your "openness" that you did not consider the key data in the null hypotheses you created.

the "tell" you are not receiving and connecting to your knowledge was the role of V in the P, V relationship. Without V, you are doing the CW PA inductive thinking as you state in this post. Induction is not a good idea.

To leave induction behind you will be difficult since it is familiar to you and the science of examining the markets through other alternatives is unfamiliar from what you say.

I found that obtaining complete and fully responsive tooling though science was the critical path to take. Why it had not been articulated before, I have thought about a lot.

The second subject, giving the scientific result to others, required a different set of scientific knowledge. Today there are two choices: enabling minds or enabling hardware. Both work magnificently. The basis for each is different as science tells us.

I do not believe in teaching and never have. So I do not teach. The alternative I chose was to "support learning". Reading and music are analogous to expert trading. Computerwise, dragon 10 is an example; so are check reading systems and music examples abound.

Putting a scale or vocabulary in the mind and giving it functionality is merely a matter of experience that is gained effectively and efficiently. It is noticable how "inference" gets in the way. Science eliminates inference very effectively. Feedback, scientifically, builds the appropriate inference quickly as short term memory becomes long term memory according the the scientific knowledge about the brain, mind and how memory works.

A P, V relation known as "tape" is the container of a building block. Annotating volume and price is a geometric approach that works with non probabilistic information theory that makes it always possible to "know that you know" either in the mind or in a computer. The binary vector, measured in the present, states the algorithm pragmatically and the science that created the algorithm came from a very fundamental rational logical development processs.

Supporting the learning of how to do fundamental rational logical development processes is what leads to a full set of tooling to handle systems that are worthwhile. The market is one of these systems. There are many many systems that deserve attention. Generally, assembling talent and resourses gets the job done. One consequence is the capability to continue to deal with other systems.

Three scientific opportunities have appeared regarding markets: tooling for pool extraction by individuals or teams; tooling for pool extraction by computers; and tooling for transferring each of the first two. This has been accomplished many times over and in many ways.

The CPM for tranferring tooling to individuals largely involves drills.
The tape drill is the beginning small geometric tool that outputs a certain binary vector, as one element of the sufficient data set used by the scientifically based algorithm. With regard to the operating fractal (s), there are always many more above and below that follow the same certainty based tooling.
 
Quote from R/R:

Sorry guys - I was trying to choose my words carefully. I said "Discretion is also used if a tape's trend is continuing with bars of decreasing volume and flattening slope."

I didn't mean to imply enough deceleration to cause a significant tape break.

I'm looking for some examples to post tomorrow. Sorry for any confusion.

Lj - here are more examples of fanning the tapes to a flatter slope.
More...
Example of fan to decreasing volume bars.
 

Attachments

Snippet from an interesting article in the New Scientist...

"...Complex systems are affected by chaos, which means that their behaviour can be influenced greatly by tiny changes. According to mathematics, the invariant set of a chaotic system is a fractal.

Fractal invariant sets have unusual geometric properties. If you plotted one on a map it would trace out the same intricate structure as a coastline. Zoom in on it and you would find more and more detail, with the patterns looking similar to the original unzoomed image...

Link to article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top