Prof I strongly agree with spyder. You may have just said this to explain another concept than slope of trends. My view is that we have, gotten together on discussions whenever it works out for those concerned. Our opinion is to use P and V as independent variables and we do have a pattern that orignates from volume leading price. Our math is all based on deduction in Boolean algebra. (the Logic made famous by Carnap but used through long periods of our civilizations.) Bar cases are few in number. Both of us are way past only using price as a variable in doing constructive rational work. Using price only is unreasonable from the get go, we both know and understand that.
On ES 5 min chart. Volume: sub 2: increasing (dom) BBT 3: decreasing (non dom) Tape : decreasing (non dom) Price: sub 2; right to left BBT 3; left to right Tape : left to right
Jack, I prefer short answers because I was taught to be as precise as possible. My teacher, for problem solving, was H.J. Cooper of Ratheon. Our endeavors took us to many environments; manufacturing, sales, management, environmental, biological, mathematical and educational. He taught me that the only way to correctly solve any problem was to first break the problem down to its smallest parts then put it back together, piece by piece, making sure each part fits perfectly together. This way you will find the part that is causing the problem. If a part isn't a perfect fit, find out, if possible, what it will take to make it perfect. Near perfect or close to perfect wasn't an option. I have worked hard as well over the last 15 years dedicated to finding the quirks in the equation and finding a perfect solution to them. I also agree that math is "a" tool but when a tool didn't currently exist to solve the problem of consistency in charting I had to create one. I've never been one to simply, "do what I was told". The portable defibrillator, the artificial heart, the laser scalpel, balloon catheter, the pacemaker, the ultrasound machine, the AbioCor Heart, portable EKG's, fetal monitor and the CT scanner are all medical devices created over the last 100 years to solve a problem. The people that created these machines weren't satisfied with current technology, at the time, so they improved on specific situations solving a problem. Now are each of these devices perfect? No, but they are a drastic improvement on what was available before each was developed. People didn't get complacent with what they had, they worked hard on improving on what already existed. Will this be the end of progress for these tools . . . I hope to God not. Your work and Spyder's work, I feel, has taken technical analysis further than the norm. I've studied the fundamentals of what you and Spyder do and I think I have a solid grasp on how you see price and the opportunities that your charts give you on each. Like the tools I've mentioned above do I think that there is any room for improvement . . . of course there is. Why did you bother to work developing your system in the first place if you didn't think you could improve on what was already out there. Do I think someone can improve on what I do . . . I hope to God so. Your answer wasn't acceptable because it didn't answer my question. It is just that simple and nothing any more sinister Jack. You are leaving a stone unturned by not even considering the potential of improvement on what you do. The granularity you mention, by shear definition, forces us to finely detail our focus to search for ways to improve on our situations.
The number of bars on a chart isn't relative to the equation of price movement on my charts. The number of bars in a cycle isn't relative, what is relative is that there "IS" a cycle and each cycle creates a distinctive and readable top (resistance" and bottom "support". The consistent weight of the bars give perfect balance to the chart. This was my point and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my direction in my first statement. As I've stated previously, I understand that the change in volume, over time, is how you view; price direction, price strength and trend. I also agree with your fractal view of price action. I simply believe that a merging of price and volume into a single consistent bar offers benefits you choose not to consider. Our use of "trend" is the similar but we define it a bit differently. We don't "trade the trend", we "trade inside the trend". We use the strength defined by the trend.
The formula for slope, to me isn't relative to a cycle. I suppose it could be but it's overkill when using pure cyclic price oscillations. I should have been more clear and stated that, the "rate of change" of price on a time based bar is confined to the time range of the bar it is being created inside. Light Volume Example: On a 5 minute eMini S&P bar, if only 50 contracts are traded and the range of those trades are 1 point, then you have a small "rate of change" and a potentially small bar. High Volume Example: On a 5 minute eMini S&P bar, if 5000 contracts are traded and the range of those trades are 10 points, then you have a large "rate of change" and a large bar. We see high volume, large "rate of change" time bars immediately during and following major news reports. It's hard to interpret these on minute charts but on volume charts the cycles still play out perfectly but the rate those cycles are created just happen faster. It would make sense that if a trader could see the perfect cyclic nature of price movement that this would help him make his trading decisions. I would think that open minded people would see the potential advantage in merging perfect cycles and perfect fractals.
Personally, I really don't see or think about anything sinister. The market has always been an open book for me. I have always enjoyed using what was available to make money by doing the critical thinking involved. I tried to make the point that one has to deal with all things to have a wholistic solution to a problem. I did mention granularity as an item that deserves consideration. There has never been a reason for me to shun the consideration of what appears on the table as time passes. Today you see both of us contributing to the conversation and in a constructive manner. I was asked to post a data set for some reason so I did. recently a person asked for a leading indicator of price. So I posted one in maths and in graphics. Another person comments on something that was entirely off topic and suggested I am trading in a lagging manner. I understand that the person doesn't "get it" regarding the leading indicator I suggested. "Knowledge and Thoroughness" is the Motto of RPI; I "get it". the pattern applies all the way down to the one tick range of fractal monitoring, analysis, decision making, and action. D has five components in its finite set; they are: Wait, HOLD, REVERSE, enter and exit. SKO asked me several questions on the "window period" for doing a reversal. I explained in several ways how to deal with the "first" and "last" oportunity and all of the times inbetween. I suggested that a person trading a fractal NEEDS to deal with the faster fractal and the slower fractal surrounding the nested trading fractal. I explained that there is overlap of one pattern with another. I explained the explicite 3 to 1 relationship of the nested fractals. Rhetorically, speaking, it could be said that I might be waiting for a question that I have not been asked in four generations. I am smiling about it. I am always asked new questions. For the humor of it, there is no limit on the earning capacity of a trader. If a person is a full time trader, then it is because he has to trade full time for personal economic reasons. The reasons probably relate to the small percentage of the market's offer he is taking. He probably takes so little because he cannot take more. It is offered and he does not take it. So he HAS to trade full time to make ends meet for his lifestyle. I agree with you that I am not the smartest guy you will ever meet. And certainly, I do not know how many people have died on my watch. One thing is evident, however. I can take all the crap handed to me and stand by my knowledge and thoroughness and experience to get the job done. Again, I do not regard anything you have said or recommended as sinister or negative or anything abot my shortcomings which I have. Our approach is the product of thoroughness and is complete and fully articulateable. We stand by our view that there is no noise or anomalies in the market. We regard it as a wholy logical and finite logic application by the use of Boolean Algebra. Probability does not apply where the decision set has just two elements. Where I you, I would put in some time in a Boolean orientation. also it may be productive to look are the cases for price, volume and price and volume. By doing this you get to a single pattern, the pattern applies symmetrically to either trend, trends overlap and fractals are nested in a three to one ratio. Concluding volume leads price is uncommon among most people. Choosing the HS amd PM came from following the dictates of the market. That is a priori since the market is always correct. Most people associated with trading the markets do not agree with what we espouse. One thing is for sure, everyone gets the consequences of their decisions. The math of the markets is Boolean Algebra.
Come on now Prof. this isn't what you said. "Rate of Change" isn't constant - hence the name. Hell 'rate of change' isn't even constant trade to trade let alone across bar to bar, trend to trend (or across an entire day). Nobody is asserting (including yourself in your quoted text) that slope (on way to measure 'rate of change') holds sway over a specific 'cycle.' However, 'rate of change' isn't constant on a time based chart. One need only compare two periods from today using an ES 5 minute chart - 9:35 AM - 10:00 AM to 13:10 PM - 13:40 PM (All times Eastern and Close of Bar). The 'rates of change' between these two areas, and within these two areas are not 'constant.' I'd agree with you here, but then we'd both be wrong. The rate of change inside (the trades actually building the bars) are not constant in terms of how fast the accumulate. The size of the actual tics are limited by the specific market. In other words, 'tics' remain constant, but how fast they accumulate within a five minute (30 minute, daily, hourly, yearly) bar is not constant. Lack of an 'open mind' is a bias I have chosen not to use. Guessing, believing, thinking, supposing can all be replaced with knowing as a result of the consequences of The Scientific Method. Instead of deciding I know best, I allow the market to provide the specific evidence required to reach an appropriate conclusion (based off a sufficient data set). The market has yet to confirm the hypothesis "Rate of Change is a Constant." In fact, the market itself reaches quite the opposite conclusion. Good trading to you. - Spydertrader
It is highly unlikely that either of you will ascertain my former lives at ET, but Spyder, I have seen u and Jack leave a blueprint to financial independence, since the first day. Prof, I traded with u back when u offered a lifetime membership, many moons ago. I can verify that the principles are sound. But I am a mad scientist, and want to be able to trade markets of any type. Markets with no volume. The purpose of this post is let you both know that one day, hopefully you guys can sit down. Spyder and Prof both live in the same state, last I checked. Or at least Jack and publish a book and republish some of the older videos. Let the crackpots crackle and let the traders judge. Many already have....... Caveat Emptor
Jack, I appreciate what you do and the journey that has taken you to this point. You make me think and anyone that can do that I respect. I feel that there is more out there and I refuse to stop digging.