Question for TA Experts
- Thread starter Daring
- Start date
You'll have to excuse Jack. It's in his nature - being the the resident fractologist and superposition guru. He must make a pass at every new member who asks about charts.
But he is nice to animals.
But he is nice to animals.
Quote from MadeMan:
3 setups you could play
1st a break of the recent bar
Ie. Short with target of tge recent swing low
2nd going long at a retest of recent swing low
3rd going long after a breakout of recent highs
Wich get retestet succesfully
I would prefer the longs due to the recent uptrend
Its that simple
1st target reached (complete)
Now lets see if we have further signs of weakness
As we traded below the penultimate low (target)
No long setup for now...
A rejection of 1444,50 would indicate further weakness
And may lead to a short setup , target 1400ish
Besides that if we see strenght returning and stay above
1435ish and take out 1444,50 we might test
The recent highs again , looking for long seups
At those levels....
This is the better representation of all the combinations. thanks for posting the drill results so clearly.
In building the mind to cope with anything that can come up in trading this is where to start with price.
A similar construct for volume emerges from "The Pattern". Eleven specific volume bar names emerge and they lead price.
Anyone designing a trading system can start with the function description of these 21 items and then use operators to create a systemmic context from which emerges an indicator system for all possible trades.
Trading only involves two situations: holding and reversing. they, fortunately, are mutually exclusive. (SEE big money and all instutional investing and trading that is oriented to optimizing use of capital).
All "on the mark" decsions to trade come from volume. This means that price cases are only used to gate or kill, volume functions combinations which may become momentary indicators (signals) to do reversing.
Therefore, it is never possible to be in a dilemma of any sort.
All of the price cases have been done and made available as functions. Operators couple them to the 11 volume bar names (specific unique functions). In the RDBMS context, the relative nature of a volume bar to it's significant prior determines whether the revrsing parametric measure would be enabled (or not with 1000% certainty) and just when in the formation of the bar the optmum moment arrives.
Take the trouble to read as much of the academic literature as possible. serious funding from the scientific wing of the government (NFS) and the vested interests of big money funded it. Alarmingly, this post satisfactorally crushes all of those results.
The more or less humorous categorical slot in which I fit is "logicologist". I am no longer judging at state or regional (multi-state) fairs.....
Logicologist it is!
Thanks for clearing it up. Many of us are sitting on the fence, wondering about u
Quote from Breakeven:
And from a different thread...
11, 12 or maybe 9!
Also, I think Carnap would be disappointed.
Here is the list I use.
I count 11 volume elements.
P1, T1, P2, T2P, Not T2P, Not Not T2P, T2F, Not T2F, Not Not T2P, P3P, P3F.
You posted first in a place where I began a list of happenings and the context that precipitates the happenings. It was only a partial list. I stated that.
you draw your own conclusions and you state them. You made a choice to stay where you are in your grow. The consequences, you get to own.
SPM had a case load of 6 possibilities. The "inventor" failed when he used a 7th that did not fit into the system consruct.
Probably you will not be a contributor in ET.
Logic theory has two main stems. one deals with operators; the other with the construction of functions.
These contructs are only done in two ways: correctly or incorrectly. The public libraries of what I use have no errors.
Perhaps I was being too subtle.
Your logic quoted in my previous post is incorrect.
I can only deduce two possible reasons for your failings. You do not fully understand the concepts that have been explained to you by a third party. You (un)intentionally state erroneous "facts".
I have, as a rule, found your posts enjoyable to read over the years. The quality (and quantity) did endure a bit of a slump (perhaps due to your recent infirmities) for a time. I do not subscribe to the fancy that you are multiple persons, your eccentricity can more than account for the variation.
This is me attempting to help you.
Your recent barrage of posts contain "inconsistencies" shall we say. This is neither true of you nor your understanding of the market.
I am putting myself where you are.
It is lucky for me (and you) that your recent activity was not my first exposure to these ideas. The self selection would have taken a different path.
With thought on your part this recent trend can reach its inevitable end and begin a new path back to stable footing for you and those new persons who have a chance to see.