I honestly don't have much of a reason. This was simply a thread I was reading. I noticed your rude remark, and didn't think FF deserved it. I didn't think much of it because I see lots of name calling by others on here who are hiding behind aliases, but when I saw your most recent post which had a link coming from what I assume is your own website, I found it interesting that you would do this. I myself am a believer and user of TA, but love to read interesting stuff to see how others view the market, so I was open to seeing what you had to say. But there is just so much theory on this board, without any actual real life application, so its all just ET soap opera stuff until proven otherwise.
I remember reading articles in a futures mag regarding system testing by Mr. Brown. High school level debating skills level the playing field on this site. He has been trolled.
I am getting there but I have to go through a process. If I throw something out without history and logic of how I got there then I haven't done anything but waste my time. People who get it stay my friends for decades. Those that don't are the sour puss SB's that post nothing but insults cause that's all they have to offer. This same discussion is currently led by me on LinkedIn with totally opposite reception. When you hide who you are and insult you're a nobody. How can I respect all the trolls on ET so ask yourself u b a troll? Fred was trolling me now he is on the ignore list. His loss not mine.
I do believe that the cruz of his argument was, as repeated here, "Perfect understanding in an environment of uncertainty? Good luck with that." You did after all say the goal was perfect understanding of price movement. This to me would imply that you will be able to say that right now price will stop at 4500... drop to 4498 before turning back up to hit 4505, and then go sideways for a bit, etc. Most everyone else here who is profitable, which is surely a small group, embraces odds and never knowing what will happen next. I look forward to seeing where you go with this since you say you are getting there. As an aside... feel free to PM me your live calls just in case you're not ready to go from process to application just yet. (ps. I trade the NQ)
Since 2007/8 I've used primarily range/momentum charts with a simple line on close. "Time" is not ever a consideration in my trades. I place no importance on where price is at a particular moment, e.g. "enter on bar close" is not anywhere in my trading lexicon, and I have no "time stop" on my trades other than the end of the instrument session. What matters to me is where price is relative to its overall recent range. I'm not so sure that means I've taken time out of the equation, but whatever of it is there on my chart is irrelevant to me and my decision making. Though "recent" is a temporal concept, so I must make some concession to time, though my use of recent is itself "timeless" as it is related to the operative and influential data displayed to the immediate left of the unfolding activity to the right, and that activity to the left may have unfolded over several days, or over just a few minutes. Good topic. Too bad this isn't a better place than it is or the discussion might have become sustainably interesting. As it is, and as it seems often to be here at ET, the discussion has devolved into a troll display. Good question. This guy kp has made a jab or two at me in the past. I think it started after only a handful of my posts, and I have no idea why. You're discussing data collation at a level beyond which most here will forever be incapable to understanding. Some degree of trolling is most likely unavoidable. Good luck with it.
as with price defined charts one can catalog and trade patterns. toby crabel comes to mind as a master pattern trader. i discovered that timeless data also has patterns and the difference is there is no need for fuzzy logic. hard defined rules exist and either you get that pattern exactly or you don't. with time charts one has to be dynamic again i will state make the data fit the math not the math fit the data. it's like watching everyone use square wheels when round ones are now available. the idea that you can not know what a market will do is totally obsolete. in fact many time based traders i know have rule sets that clearly define scenarios before data arrives and orders placed in advance with follow up what if's. You can not arrive at this confidence level without knowing what can happen. you can not know what will happen without allot of experience, not know what is going to happen is not an option.
Any of the same indicators that anyone would use - it's not the indicators that makes this form of trading better its the data. Posting another chart comparing time based daily bars with equivalent timeless range based bars. I think this has discussion has exhausted but nonetheless timeless data is here to stay. I view it as the round wheel introduced at the height of square wheel popularity. http://markbrown.com/linkedin/20151126-003.png
so if your rules for the pattern are so well defined, how often do they present? i assume that if you are so sure about what the market will do next, then you have to have a very defined pattern, and even then, is there no chance of being wrong? perhaps you can put some numbers to this. when you say that you know what will happen next, is this prediction something along the lines of "the market will by the end of the day rise at least a few points above where it is now"? and if you're never wrong, what stops you from using full leverage, trading as many contracts as your account will allow, leaving no room for being wrong because you know you wont be and hence don't need to worry about still having enough capital left to put on another trade even if you're wrong twice in a row? the way i imagine you mean that you can have a perfect understanding of the market is the ability to call absolute tops and bottoms in real time and place a counter trend trade for greater than 99% accuracy with a very tight stop. does your definition differ from this? don't you in a way just disprove your point in this sentence? with these guys having a orders placed in advance with follow ups, doesn't this mean that the first thing they thought would happen didn't in fact happen? why the need for a follow up contingency in the plan? all they should ever need is an entry order and a profit taking order, never mind a stop loss order or even a follow up order.