As you get into trading and associate with others who trade size, you will begin to notice how they deal with the Premium. Most orgs have PW's for using their libs and often libs are dedicated. elsewhere in this thread it has been pointed out that many degrees of freedom are involved in handling info (See jerry030). 70 handles most of the details. At any time not all are part of the picture. The usual data set for completing a routine is 5 to 7. most of the commentary in ET is "freak out" trading when a singal indicators is reacted to. See the mistaken comment on Premium spikes.
Could you work out your internal mental health issues on another thread? Many cities have public mental health services where you can see a therapist at no cost if you can't afford one. They can do wonders with obsessive/compulsive disorders these days. I know you been trying to deal with it. It might be time for new meds.
Oh Jerry I nearly cracked a rib from laughing, why do you continue to fail at trading when a lucrative stand up career beckons?
The issue here is not making a living but your mental health and your compulsion to destroy otherwise useful threads with your unresolved issues either real or just projected onto Jack Hardy. Jack's pretty strange himself and I don't know if anything he says has merit, nor do I care, as his writing ranges form hard to read to incomprehensible. However he appears just eccentric but not seriously mentally ill. What happens when you continually urinate on a thread is people of any ability and creativity go elsewhere. The remaining stench of urine just attracts the flys, so to speak. As you still on Lexapro? I head Zoloft might be good for your condition.
No offense Jack but you didn't answer my question. I've poised this question, outside of a market environment, to math professors, literally, all over the world and the answers was always the same. "Yes, you can come to a conclusion to the equation but the conclusion will ALWAYS be a greatly varying range of numbers based on the frequency of change inside that specific environment with a random starting point and random ending point. At best the starting point would be fixed but the ending point, in a variable environment will ALWAYS be random. [A fixed and stable whole number] +/x/÷/- [A fixed and stable whole number] = [A fixed and stable whole number] [A constantly varying whole number] +/x/÷/- [A constantly varying whole number] = [A constantly varying whole number] [A fixed and stable whole number] +/x/÷/- [A fixed constantly varying whole number] = [A constantly varying whole number] [A constantly varying whole number] +/x/÷/- [A fixed and stable whole number] = [A constantly varying whole number] To clarify my position: On a time based chart, every time a new bar is created the equation changes thus changing the outcome decision because the weight (volume) of the bar is different from the previous bar. A tick based chart varies as well, just not to the extreme as a time based chart does. I ask this question to non-market technicians to get an unbiased answer because market technicians seem never to be able to give me a specific answer. This is because most live in a variable environment and are constantly trying to find fixed answers to their questions . . . which isn't impossible but their answers are only fixed for ONE BAR. I understand what you do Jack with adding a volume indicator to your time based charts so that price direction is at least partially derived from the amount of volume associated with the time based bar but this is translation of volume to time which isn't exact. It's close and definitely better than some but not exact. I also agree, in part, with your definition of [Trend - a price change segment over time in one direction) is "continuing" or "changing"] but you can't have a fixed definition of Trend in a variable environment. I would change YOUR definition, in my environment to, [Trend - price change segments, where those segments are based on exact & consistently based volume oscillations that specifically confirm price is either "continuing" in its current direction or "changing"direction] We should always strive to achieve exact and precise answers to our questions. We should never settle on "close" as a reasonable conclusion.
Your logic here (and that of those esteemed mathematicians) contains a False Premise. Since the equation which defines a trend does not contain a number of bars, adding extra bars does not alter any equation. By form of an analogy, the definition of what you eat for breakfast does not change based upon the amount of reading material sitting on your kitchen table. Eggs, bacon, toast, cereal and coffee remains 'breakfast' whether you read 'The Economist' or the ingredients on the back of the cereal box. - Spydertrader