You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oscillators and Divergence
- Thread starter Joe Ross
- Start date
Quote from ammo:
hersh, i see a 93 to 86 with a 5 point bounce,so the 123 is the staircase and the 50 % retrace is the 100 of the 200%?
you have three moves on the faster fractal and they could be called 50%'ers.
The middle one being a retrace.
Next you see a fast fractal 200%'er and as time passes there are several more 200%'ers, either dominant or non dom.
This first 200%'er is a "reversal" in lieu of just being a retrace. (The traditional "early exit" of the CW type trader).
You cool comments on the 50%, 100% and 200% are really showing good sensitivity to such situations.
We should probably locate, during the regular trading day, when this set of set ups usually occur.
Jack,
As Felix Hausdorff proved during his research of regulated fractals, if you do not factor in the Hausdorff dimension then the chances of calculating the Hilbert curve correctly substantially decreases.
So basically, if the Euclidean line is off by more than 0.01%, you are guaranteed that what you will be witnessing will be just another chaotic dynamical system which is no better than a coin flip.
Read some of the work done by Wac³aw Sierpiñski.
As Felix Hausdorff proved during his research of regulated fractals, if you do not factor in the Hausdorff dimension then the chances of calculating the Hilbert curve correctly substantially decreases.
So basically, if the Euclidean line is off by more than 0.01%, you are guaranteed that what you will be witnessing will be just another chaotic dynamical system which is no better than a coin flip.
Read some of the work done by Wac³aw Sierpiñski.
this trade or "set up" for CW folk is common as the "open trade", the "gap trade", and the settlement trade in the early pm.
Also there is the matter of those who do gedging in order that any effort they "bet" on is NOT naked.
Here you have the "sudden" evoking of "protection" in the form of hedging using indexes as "insurance".
It is just like a rogue wave setting up and everyone "suddenly" feels the real need to yet again cover their asses as a mistaken position is most fully recognized. I am unwilling to site any examples of this; I don't want a bunch of quants committing group suicide.
Also there is the matter of those who do gedging in order that any effort they "bet" on is NOT naked.
Here you have the "sudden" evoking of "protection" in the form of hedging using indexes as "insurance".
It is just like a rogue wave setting up and everyone "suddenly" feels the real need to yet again cover their asses as a mistaken position is most fully recognized. I am unwilling to site any examples of this; I don't want a bunch of quants committing group suicide.
Quote from ammo:
here's an old staircase
VERY GOOD.
that was fun.
For those who experienced it, we did the WJO'N rally attempt analysis calculation four times during the stair case. All failed usising this 3 to 10 day test*. From memory, I think the RAA is on page 69 of HTMMIS in a pre "87 edition.
This was in a West Coast Boutique setting with one of WJO'N's protogege's. Very aggressive clients who used POA's with the boutique principal. All were in cash.
You can read in the IBD, the analysis submitted the prior day before the "beginning of the recovery" announcement. From my memory, it appeared on04NOV87.
Long ago on raging bull we did these "setups" and the exit/reentry often preciptated a 60% inprovement in positioning in one day. (7 digit positions).
GREAT ILLUSTRATION.
* using the null hypothesis, this repeated failure meant that the precrash "stairstep" was totally out of line. Going to cash was manditory for equities holdings. LOL seems like yesterday.....