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.
Psyntax and Psychology
- Thread starter Arthur Deco
- Start date
kidpwrtrader is making a good point about me with respect to how my reply to Rahula was off the mark.
I didn't know, then, that ET posters do not know what variable is associated with what term.
I thought that relating two different raw data variables using commonly derived representations for each would be helpful. I also thought that dealing with all the possible relationships would be helpful. That's where my name comes from, obviously.
Mathematics of the markets is my hobby and pleasure.
Also I thought it would be nice to have price charts shaded all of the time with colors that repeat in particular sequences.
Rahula didn't see enough to differentiate between trend and momentum even when it is obvious that only one term is derived from price and the other is not.
So far in that thread, no one has made the differentiation except me.
kidpwrtrader sees the words I posted as not readable and he is using your tip to ET to play your game. I think my post to Rahula was right on target. It could have inspired him to see the mathematics of trend and momentun are indepedent and apply by using two different raw data inputs, the results of comparing the four possible combinations of the derivatives of the two variables would have shown that 1 of the 4 conditions always applied with rare exception, and that the places where the shading changes occured were, each and everyone, a valuable time for consideration with respect to trading.
The distribution (probabilities) of the shading changes are rather appealing it turns out. They seem to define market strength when testing results are considered.
I am disappointed that my readability doesn't meet the ET test.
Does anybody here use Tillson's T3 stuff? Does it do any better than Mark Brown's equity curve? TIA.
I didn't know, then, that ET posters do not know what variable is associated with what term.
I thought that relating two different raw data variables using commonly derived representations for each would be helpful. I also thought that dealing with all the possible relationships would be helpful. That's where my name comes from, obviously.
Mathematics of the markets is my hobby and pleasure.
Also I thought it would be nice to have price charts shaded all of the time with colors that repeat in particular sequences.
Rahula didn't see enough to differentiate between trend and momentum even when it is obvious that only one term is derived from price and the other is not.
So far in that thread, no one has made the differentiation except me.
kidpwrtrader sees the words I posted as not readable and he is using your tip to ET to play your game. I think my post to Rahula was right on target. It could have inspired him to see the mathematics of trend and momentun are indepedent and apply by using two different raw data inputs, the results of comparing the four possible combinations of the derivatives of the two variables would have shown that 1 of the 4 conditions always applied with rare exception, and that the places where the shading changes occured were, each and everyone, a valuable time for consideration with respect to trading.
The distribution (probabilities) of the shading changes are rather appealing it turns out. They seem to define market strength when testing results are considered.
I am disappointed that my readability doesn't meet the ET test.
Does anybody here use Tillson's T3 stuff? Does it do any better than Mark Brown's equity curve? TIA.
I have no idea what you are saying. Not trying to be an asshole, I just haven't got a clue.
I'm still trying to decide whether your language is purposefully hershey-like or whether you just are playing games with us country bumpkins.
I'm still trying to decide whether your language is purposefully hershey-like or whether you just are playing games with us country bumpkins.
To the best of my recollection, CD23, you did not post an illustration of your quadripartite approach. Perhaps one is in order to further discussion?
As an aside on the Tillson, a motivation for its creation was to handle gaps better. Any fool less clever would simply restart his preferred estimator at the gapped value and let it unwind from there, a good reason for coding the EMA yourself rather than using canned code. IMO the EMA is fine and dandy for indicating direction.
As an aside on the Tillson, a motivation for its creation was to handle gaps better. Any fool less clever would simply restart his preferred estimator at the gapped value and let it unwind from there, a good reason for coding the EMA yourself rather than using canned code. IMO the EMA is fine and dandy for indicating direction.
As I live and breathe, Jack has risen. :eek:
Let us pray.
Let us pray.
I would not be so sure. On the one hand, Jack historically likes to go away and lick his wounds, and come back incorporating some of the criticism into his method, long enough later that many people have forgotten what he used to say. On the other, if I am picking up the drift, CD23 is talking about things Jack never discussed. For example, I don't recall Jack ever using the word "momentum". Or distinguishing it from trend, if indeed there is such a distinction. On both hands, Jack has always used the word "stuff" when at a senile loss for a more descriptive noun. The game continues.
Perhaps you're right. I just made the assumption based on how I felt after reading cd23's post: slightly nauseous with a touch of vertigo. Of course, these symptoms only occur when I try to understand what Jack (and in this instance cd23) is trying to say. On the other hand, when I just read the text for its phonetic value, without trying to ascribe any meaning to it, then I feel fine.
I pray to all that is holy that cd23 is not the result of a diabolical cloning experiment gone horribly wrong.
I pray to all that is holy that cd23 is not the result of a diabolical cloning experiment gone horribly wrong.
The real test comes when Seedy starts getting specific as to theory and method. So far he has given us mostly rhetorical questions without the question marks. No one who is not a Jack fan could possibly recite the catechism without becoming ill. And it is still possible that Seedy is sincere, but not a good communicator, in which case I will owe him a huge ape-ology. We don't want to discourage anyone from posting who has good ideas.
Well, Nkhoi, a point of this thread, as with many of my threads, is to get "traders" talking. It usually becomes evident quickly if they are merely theorists who do not trade at all. Conversely, subtle remarks can indicate otherwise. Ambiguities, which is what we have so far, merely skirt the issue and delay the day of public reckoning.