If I blindly gave you guys data series chosen to have Hurst exponents of -.75, 0.5, and .75, you would still be drawing these stupid lines all over the graphs without a clue.
Demonstrating you're frustrated there aren't any topics that interest you insures you won't get what you want because it consumes your time and makes others such as myself think less of you. If you believe in your ideas and believe you know the correct path demonstrate it. Start topics that interest you. Unfortunately despite outstanding intelligence within what I read of your posting history, I won't be able to benefit when you do ...because I can't afford the distraction you're causing in this thread. Maybe someday someone will quote something brilliant you say. ...without the html hook the forum uses to block quotes, of those on my ignore list. And I will get another chance to benefit from your posts ...if the cost / benefit is viable. In the meantime please refrain from posting to this topic. It not only limits yourself, but also others such as myself who could benefit from your posts if you focused on what interests you.
You do know that this is a ridiculous statement. Take cancer as an example, there is no scientific proof of what causes cancer, but cancer exists. The matter how much scientific rigor is done, we still cannot determine the cause of cancer. So according to you cancer does not exist.
This whole Fractal Theory that you guys are rallying behind is in the realm of Bob Prechter and Elliot Wave. By that I mean this method goes no further than an intuition that market data is fractal in nature. There is no formalism or testable hypothesis with which to base any conclusions on. I suppose drawing all these lines all over a graph is one way of collecting empirical data about this theory. However, have any of you ever done some back testing using this method in support this empirical approach? If you have, please share the results. Black-Scholes is still a theory, but makes testable assumptions about underlying price movements and resulting price of an option. I just want readers of this thread to understand that this theory, as currently developed, is in the realm of Guruism, as is all pattern recognition methods, simply because the scientific method cannot be applied to it.
Very true, Panzer. This has been proven multiple times-- yet the true believers-- simply refuse to understand since they have so much energy invested in the fatally flawed idea. surf
There is a very deep seated delusion spawned by price charts, hindsight bias, fear of math, and the desire for easy money. Mixed together it creates the cult like stew normally reserved for religious and other fanatics. Keep posting truth. surf
Personally, I don't draw lines on a chart. But I am not dismissive of those who do and find them useful. I have no time for the likes of Elliot or Gann, but there seem to be some people of credible insight who believe in fractals as they relate to the market: http://www.amazon.com/Misbehavior-M...=8-1-spell&keywords=themisbehavior+of+markets I read the book a number of years ago, found it quite interesting, but do not subscribe to its general concepts in my own trading. At least not knowingly or directly. I just don't happen to be a fan of sweeping generalizations and dismissive arrogance. As Larry Phillips pointed out in Zen and the Art of Poker, "...poker is nothing more than a long, random, neutral statistical run..." And yet, there are consistent winners over time. The market, while hardly the poster child of predictability, is less random than poker hands. Go from there.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. Take that to your bank manager, Good Sir.
Using the same chain of logic described for a BBT, does FC1 set the standard for FC2? So FC2 would have to match FC1 visibly? So if FC1 is all dv bars, and FC2 is all dv bars, when FC3 bo rtl of FC2 and when FC3 (and only then) includes an iv bar, you have met requirements for a BBT?