Perfection! Making You Think and Go . . . Huh!

[jbt]

Quote from ProfLogic:

My question was to Prove that the market doesn't perfectly confirm it's cyclical tops and bottoms. Or that the Market doesn't cycle specifically incrementally. My thread has nothing to do with my site as well. I will give away all the information on the site here if I can get individuals to think for themselves instead of trusting someone else assumptions. Read my original statement and prove me wrong . . . don't manipulate what I said to justify not even trying to disprove it.

I have spent 8 years researching market movement from a standpoint of naked oscillation. I have used NO EXISTING theory to base anything from. My only goal was to confirm what is perfect in the Market and what was a variable. If you know of another individual that has researched the Market from the same standpoint, for the same length of time or longer . . . I would love to sit down and compare notes. Everyone I have ever spoken to though has studied the Market from someone else's theory . . . not taking the time to figure anything out on their own. Why is it so hard to believe something exists, just because you weren't aware of it?

I'm delusional just because you say I am . . . prove me wrong. I'm a researcher looking for that person that see's something I might have missed. I'm not perfect. Prove what you say is valid. Not with words but with fact. I can prove that Market Price is cyclical using tick charts. I can prove that Market Price moves from cyclical top to cyclical bottom. I can prove that every top and bottom of a cycle does one spacific thing to confirm it's completed its move up or down. Now . . . prove that I'm wrong.

Prologic have you ever traded?
I ask that in all sincerity. because even a teeeny weeny little novice daytrader can tell you about getting trapped on the wrong side of a creeper uptrend ALL day long and watching your asinine assumptions about oscillation go right out the door along with your money.

The key factor that many ACTUAL traders have pointed out is LATERAL movement which will work off the thrust energy without ever creating a cycle.

Here is a simple example to stop all this nonsense. You asked to be proven wrong. Oscillate this chart. And don't tell me that it will eventually turn. IB margin department wont give a s--.

 

[harrytrader]

You talk of proof and you don't want OFFICIAL "PROOF" ?

I didn't answer because your definition of "proof" is a bit awkward to me: normally in probability theory one doesn't demonstrate that an effect DOESN'T exist it rather consist to demonstrate that something EXISTS that is to say differs from RANDOMNESS.

Now if you want to know rather if there is proof that supports or resistances are real see my post about Carol Osler and the Bootstrap method although it's not hard proof - hard proof could only come from an econo-physical model like mine but since I don't want to reveal them. Now there are some proofs that emerge from university econophysicians see post above about the Golden ratio (reproduced below). But they still can't predict like my model: they can only make stochastic modelisation and not deterministic one.

-----------
Exerpt from News Scientist

"Guido Caldarelli of Manchester University and his colleagues have created a computer program that simulates speculators trading with the aim of increasing their own wealth. Initially, stocks are randomly priced and traders buy at random. From then on, they buy and sell simply according to recent price history. After each buying round, the trader with least capital is wiped out and replaced by a newcomer.

As the simulation progresses, a complex pattern of peaks and troughs in the price of each stock emerges. The fluctuations appear to have a "fractal" structure—the shape of the fluctuations is the same, regardless of the timescale considered. Caldarelli has calculated the Hurst exponent of this fractal pattern, a measure that characterises its dimensions. The value is 0.62—just 0.03 short of a value published in 1995 for real stock market data (Nature, vol 376, p 46).
"

Quote from ProfLogic:

Harry, I appreciate your desire to be included in a thread but your answer, for lack of a better word, doesn't address the question or is it a response by you personally. It is a canned response you have placed on numerious threads I have read. And to make matters worse the response is regarding information that is between 30 and 100 years old. The purpose of this thread is to make you think for yourself not spew what you read somewhere else or to repeat something someone told you. Please try again and this time respond to the specific question. Thanks.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from manz66:

Most people in the world 99% of them including ET are closed minded.

I agree with you here about cycle and oscilator, but they do not know how to trade it. Although you gave away your method, but people here in ET can not recognize that. I am happy they stay in the blind .

They are thinking to trade cycle analysis you have to predict. You are saying read the market, but they are so lazy to comprehend the difference it is laughable.

If you want to discuss further about cycle theory pm me. I am not going to talk about this in the forum, because like you last four years I went through the market tic by tic and came to some conclusion and do not want to share with regular people. They have to pay their due in the market through research.

I'm glad they don't either . . . . I'll email you and we'll share.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from forextrades:

Is this the same guy who calls himself the logicmaster? Look at his bs calls in the 2004 Program Trade Section of his site: http://www.logicalmarkettrends.com/

It's funny how they are all entered and exited at round numbers.

I love responders that can't read . . . I wish I could buy them all dinner. They make trading everyday so smooth and easy. Please, everyone go the the link forextrades provided and read the entire page.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from illiquid:

zzzzzz . . . aren't profits enough reward for a trader these days?

A trading journal is one thing, but do you really need to come in here and ask other people to prove your theories wrong? The market can accomplish that very same job with far greater efficiency, with the added bonus of complete anonymity to save your ego from the same fate suffered by your trading account

Another "rocket scientist" moves out from the shadows. I know Logic is a foreign language to you but try this on for size . . . If the Market proves me wrong on a consistent basis, then why is it impossible for individuals to show me one example where it happened? BoooBye!

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from jbt:

Prologic have you ever traded?
I ask that in all sincerity. because even a teeeny weeny little novice daytrader can tell you about getting trapped on the wrong side of a creeper uptrend ALL day long and watching your asinine assumptions about oscillation go right out the door along with your money.

The key factor that many ACTUAL traders have pointed out is LATERAL movement which will work off the thrust energy without ever creating a cycle.

Here is a simple example to stop all this nonsense. You asked to be proven wrong. Oscillate this chart. And don't tell me that it will eventually turn. IB margin department wont give a s--.

Oh, a picture is going to prove me wrong. Okay Dokay!
Here comes your explanation. Your chart looks to be done in minute increments, first problem since the Markets are traded in transactions or trades not minutes, minute charts will always be incorrectly skewed and unreadable. Still I can read a confirmed short term bottom a little after 2 pm, no failed Resistance, so that is telling me the trend is still moving up and finally the your Market could be topping but it won't be confirmed till price confirms failure to breach. This chart has oscillated once I can see, once I am have a hard time seeing because of the inaccuracy of the chart and could be in the process of oscillating again but has yet to confirm.
Oh, I trade all the time. That is how I make a living and a very good living if I do saw so myself.
Also, If you read this thread all the way through you will have all the "secrets" to trading perfectly but you won't figure it out because you have been too tainted by what you have been told by other and have never bother to verify anything on your own.

After you have intently studied Market movement for at least 20,000 hours we will sit down and have an intelligent conversation.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from harrytrader:

You talk of proof and you don't want OFFICIAL "PROOF" ?

I didn't answer because your definition of "proof" is a bit awkward to me: normally in probability theory one doesn't demonstrate that an effect DOESN'T exist it rather consist to demonstrate that something EXISTS that is to say differs from RANDOMNESS.

Now if you want to know rather if there is proof that supports or resistances are real see my post about Carol Osler and the Bootstrap method although it's not hard proof - hard proof could only come from an econo-physical model like mine but since I don't want to reveal them. Now there are some proofs that emerge from university econophysicians see post above about the Golden ratio (reproduced below). But they still can't predict like my model: they can only make stochastic modelisation and not deterministic one.

-----------
Exerpt from News Scientist

"Guido Caldarelli of Manchester University and his colleagues have created a computer program that simulates speculators trading with the aim of increasing their own wealth. Initially, stocks are randomly priced and traders buy at random. From then on, they buy and sell simply according to recent price history. After each buying round, the trader with least capital is wiped out and replaced by a newcomer.

As the simulation progresses, a complex pattern of peaks and troughs in the price of each stock emerges. The fluctuations appear to have a "fractal" structure—the shape of the fluctuations is the same, regardless of the timescale considered. Caldarelli has calculated the Hurst exponent of this fractal pattern, a measure that characterises its dimensions. The value is 0.62—just 0.03 short of a value published in 1995 for real stock market data (Nature, vol 376, p 46).
"

Again a response in psycobabble based on something read not something created from original thought.

 

[illiquid]

Quote from ProfLogic:

Another "rocket scientist" moves out from the shadows. I know Logic is a foreign language to you but try this on for size . . . If the Market proves me wrong on a consistent basis, then why is it impossible for individuals to show me one example where it happened? BoooBye!

Because you can never be wrong "retrotrading" -- you might as well say you "buy the daily low and sell the daily highs" and it will be totally irrefutable as well, but don't you see how silly it is?

Everything is easy looking in the rear-view mirror. Take it to real time and with real money, you'll see where your "logic" fails.

ps -- You might want to ask around if "logic" has ever made anyone money in the markets before you open that e*trade account

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from illiquid:

Because you can never be wrong "retrotrading" -- you might as well say you "buy the daily low and sell the daily highs" and it will be totally irrefutable as well, but don't you see how silly it is?

Everything is easy looking in the rear-view mirror. Take it to real time and with real money, you'll see where your "logic" fails.

ps -- You might want to ask around if "logic" has ever made anyone money in the markets before you open that e*trade account

I don't make ANYONE money . . . they make it themselves proving their own trade set-ups with what they see themselves. They trust themselves and what they see in the Market everyday without fail. They don't have to trust someone else's discretionary, variable and inconsistent opinions.

If you read this entire thread you will see I asked a simple mechanical question that any seasoned trader should be able to disprove with multiple facts & pictures if it were able to be disproved.

Since this thread was started, it has irritated some at the shear audacity of my statement that the Markets are NOT random and chaotic but yet no one can disprove my question. They feel that if they "Say" it can't be possible long enough and loud enough it will at least make themselves feel better. I just wanted to make traders start thinking for themselves instead of blindly believing what others have told them. There are a few, very few, that get it. These individuals have studied the Markets without the influence of other's tainted inconsistent methods. I have received emails from individuals that are successful trading this way or a variant of this method.

I can still remember being invited to a seminar a few months back by a reputable Market Analyst who made the statement, "If you are correct 60% of the time and your winners are a lot bigger than your losers, you will prosper". I looked at him and said that is like putting 2 random bullets in a six shooter (33.3%), spinning the cartridge, holding it to your head and pulling the trigger. If it doesn't go off . . . you WIN! That is an exaggeration but the mindset is the same. If you go into any trading scenario KNOWING you have the potential for loss (40%), psychologically you will ALWAYS be hesitant to trade.

 

[Grob109]

I read all the posts in this thread and I commented initially (page 1) suggesting that I did not want a response from anyone.

The reason I posted the way I did was this comment from you; you said:

“There are a few members of ET that make a point of skewing threads to become a forum for themselves. Watch this thread to see the transition of thought and responses”

Obviously after page one, you reinforced the idea that this is your thread for your reasons and you do not want the topic to be changed to the nature outcome of getting things straightened out.

There are many ways to fault your hypothesis. Were anyone to do that, then it is highly likely that the thread would turn away from what you propose and tend toward dealing with the consequences of shifting to the new theme implied and inferred by the more general and correct solution to market operation than you perceive.

I do agree that threads do get skewed by some people who post differing views than those of the originator. I believe this is a normal consequence of discourse especially when the level of conversation is raised and directed to where fertility exists.

So far in this thread, most people have treated you in the same way as the quant at DB did. Others than you are trained differently just as the quant is trained differently than you. What could he do but be patient and courteous to you. You have no common ground or experience with him. Don’t expect “wakeup calls” from others, especially if you are not able to comprehend the fields in which they are trained and experienced.

Your statements here scope and bound your limits. Also, you limit others from responding to you by giving them notice in advance that you do not want the thread to go to the topic of what follows from finishing up dealing with your mistaken assertions and hypothesis.