Pattern like triangle can be also monitored by the same points because the breakout will occur only after consolidating entirely in the theorical band: <IMG SRC=http://harrytrader.membres.jexiste.org/guide/galleries/images/triangle_breakout.gif>
Charts give me a damn headache. I don't understand Harry's charts any less than anyone else's. I prefer looking at pretty blinking lights. So I just watch TWS, and trade off what I see there.
Of course if 2 horizontal lines (since one doesn't even need in fact to trace the oblique lines) is giving you headache . But it doesn't surprise me people don't like to ask their brain to move out of their habits : it has been true even for Einstein's theory since he didn't even receive its nobel prize for his Relativity . Many people, not all happily, only accept true or even false ideas only when they are getting accustomed : today students are not more intelligent than 50 years ago and Einstein's relativity is studied at college in France. So I don't expect that the majority understand it or rather tries to understand it, only a few : the few are used to be called elite although I don't like that term. I thought here there were elites (here) : did I misinterpret ? .
If it is by lack of objectivity that wouldn't surprise me also seeing the behavior of crowd in general see : http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17664 I wasn't thinking that before 1999 and I thought that perhaps the reason could be that french people weren't particularly stupid but because there were uneducated about economy since at school there were only 2 hours of economy lessons per week at college level compared to 10 hours in mathematics for example. Now I have come to see US stock forum to see if US people are more educated than french people and how they reason .
An other important concept is Unification http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/atiyah.html "Mathematics and physics and a lot of science aims to unify by simplifying and enabling the next stage to go forward. It's easier in mathematics. Obviously with something in the area of biology, unification isn't as straightforward. DNA unified a lot of stuff, but there's still a lot more complication in biology. But physics is much closer to mathematics, this end of physics, the basic end. There are parts of physics which are also messy and complicated where you don't really unify easily. " Why ? because although things become more detached from reality (the concept of atom is no more simplistically a reduction of a planet but a much more fuzzy concept) by unifying you reduce the number of heteregenous models and even opposing themselves (for example Quantum Mechanic opposes with Einstein's gravitation on very short distance so the String Theory Birth ) that's what means the term SIMPLIFICATION : simplification doesn't mean simplist it means to be able to explain the maximum of cases in reality with a single theory and also to predict much more precisely (as I said one day the Feynman diagram in Quantum Theory is one of the best achievment in Physics). Physicians know that Einstein must be somehow true so Quantum Theory was surely incomplete. In Stock Market there are different schools : float analysis, Dow Theory, Elliott Wave which are today denied by economist and officials although their practice is secular. So my aim was to unify all. In fact I didn't have any ambition at the beginning to unify with Elliott but seeing that results show that there are some similitudes I should be able to englob one day the Elliott theory with the advantage of being less combinatory and more precise. Stock Market has the reputation among theoricians to be one of the most difficult to modelise SCIENTIFICALLY (since rules of thumbs from traditional TA cannot be considered as rational scientific model by them) it is funny that it even serves as reference for researchers for example in Astrophysic domain and they are not alone I read the same kind of reference to difficulty of modelling Stock Market by a researcher for robotics field. "Stock Market Swings Help Researchers Understand Extreme Events In Solar Wind. Large fluctuations in the solar wind affect our local 'space weather'. Predicting these is as challenging as predicting large changes in stock prices. As this work suggests that the underlying mathematics is similar we can apply knowledge from one area to understand the other. " http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020726081058.htm So I decided to use the Acronym of MUC for "Market Universal Code". Do you think it would be a good idea if I contact Spielberg for the next superproduction at Hollywood : it could be a kind of mix between the two famous Matrix and ... PI http://harrytrader.membres.jexiste.org/guide/intro.swf
Seems like even Harrytrader doesn't understand his charts. If he did, it would seem possible that he could make the rest of us understand them as well. Or even one or two of us. So far, it seems he's getting through to no one. And using a lot of words to do it. Even assuming that there is merit to Harry's charts, and that they actually do mean something, does that make them any more valuable than anything we find that is more simple and is successful more frequently than a coin flip? There is no value in complexity for complexity's sake. Personally, I would rather trade and make my errors (which will happen no matter what) than sit and make a plan for each trade that is so complicated and so time consuming that it makes rocket science seem simple. How much time is it worth devoting to a trade that may last 30 seconds? Or 5 minutes? Me, I buy strong stocks on dips, and short weak stocks on bounces. I am not a super quick trader like Nitro. But still, I can make a hundred trades in less time than it would take me to draw all the lines and ponder all the variables to conform to a system like Harry's and make one trade. And then, what if that one trade doesn't work out? Time is money. Cut your loses, hold the winners, and do it a lot of times. Keep it simple. Peace, RS
>>If he did, it would seem possible that he could make the rest of us understand them as well. Or even one or two of us. << Error 404, it does appear that there are at least TWO people who declared, via their vote in the poll, that they DO understand the charts. Now it IS pretty clear that Harry's thought are muddled and that therefore he is unable to clearly express what it is all about. So why don't, why didn't, those two knowing voters instead step up to the plate and explain ? One of these two is Alfonso, so Alfonso what about it ? freealways