Since this is your thread why not explain why you think my method is incomplete instead of posting partial meaningless quips. This forum is great when all of us share information for our collective education. We don't have to take in what is offered but we can appreciate the effort.
Believe me, I'm no teacher and as you can tell from my posts, not much of a writer either. I started this thread to correlate different time frames (nest fractals).The ability to nest fractals allows a trader to always know if he/she should be long or short on the fractal that he/she is trading. If people want to present opposing views, no problem. Just don't try to change mine. All of this is public information already. Here are a couple of places to start : http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83604&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f34/price-volume-relationship-6320.html
I look at each day as a potential learning experience in the making. I also NEVER close my mind to new ideas. I always expore the possibility until I can personally confirm that is of no benefit to my environment. To me, " I know" carries more weight than "I think" because without verification, I can be wrong and being even a little wrong can cost me potential profit each day. Great success to you in the future.
I've been nesting charts for 15 years and am intimately familiar with the process and their benefit. As you stated, you started the thread to correlate different chart increments and all I did was show you a perfectly consistent way to create nested charts using complete market data. I simply gave you the information to test. I wasn't trying to change your mind. I was just sharing validated information. You summarily dismissed it without testing it. That is your perogative but don't belittle what I do calling it incomplete until you have the ability to test it personally. I respect what Spyder does and what we do is similar. There are differences though and we leave it at that, respecting those differences.
This discussion isn't setting limits on your understanding, it's asking someone to deny a universally accepted definition. It's like me showing you a square and you telling me it's really a triangle. I, mean, I'm open minded and think there are a lot of things in this world that are open to discussion and interpretation but when it comes to mathematics there's no interpretation: a square is a square. There are defined sets of rules and agreed upon definitions because without them, mathematics becomes chaos. Imagine if somebody came in and challenged how many degrees are in a compass or that a 4-sided object is actually a triangle? Everything is objective with mathematics, not subjective. This is the definition of fractals: I think maybe what you're doing is coming up with your own definition of fractals and then using that definition and set of data and calling it your own and that's fine. Others will take exception when you try to re-define something. Call it rain-fractals or something else, just don't try to re-define something that cannot be re-defined. Listen...I respect your belief in how a fractal works, I just don't agree with your definition of a fractal. If this method works for you, then keep on keepin' on; I hope it makes you lots of money and you can keep repeating your results with a constantly changing set of data. There's no right/wrong way to trade; there are limitless ways to interact with a constantly changing set of data. I'm not calling you out and I don't think ProfLogic is, either, on your abilities and trading methods...it's simply a disagreement over what constitutes a fractal. Personally, I don't think that we can assign a level of importance to data. By playing God and choosing which data to use and omit we're saying that either: A. Certain data is irrelevant or at the very least not as important as other data. or B. We are smarter than the Market I don't believe in either of those statements and that's just me... bmills
Dealing with RTH continuity is very important. The nesting of fractals points this out. It takes quite a while to deal with arriving at a set of building blocks to complete a system. By working through, thoroughly, the complete picture we would all arrive at the same place. As time passed, I nested fractals in pragmatic ways. Then we developed the viewpoint that SA (Systems Analysis) was the true underlying. By this simplification and focus, it was possible to deal with whatever questions were brought up by the market. Fractals relate to each other as building blocks. The single pattern that emerges early on from the market, dictates how completion is reached from the smallest to the greatest building block. To examine an instrument like ES or YM it is necessary to use only one set of characterisitcs of that instrument. During RTH's the characteristics are completely defined in a systemic way. While the ES market is not ammenable to being described using continuous functions, it is describable in terms of its characteristics. By using a given set of characteristics that are measurable for each instrument, it is possible to tell various instruments apart by their characteristics. I suggest that the description of ES during RTH is very different than what is describable in non RTH's. While there may be only one data stream over a 24 hour period; it is important to differentiate how two instruments are created by dividing that data stream into two interleaved but not in any way characterisitcally overlapipng. I know my statement is difficult to process at first. As the consideration of the common elements of consideration that form characteristics are put on the table, this mechanism is what is most useful for defining instruments. The systems analysis tests of system quality comes down to being able to apply a system to many markets and on many fractals all of which have sufficient liquidity for applying the system. As has been stated liquidity in a given time context is measured in orders of magnitude, relatively speaking. This is the element in the character differentiation of RTH or non RTH that shows best the lack of overlap in character of the two parts. The ratio of 3 to 1 (which is prime as suggested) follows from the "nesting" prima facia requirement. Nothing integral in the identity of a pattern in a given fractal can be repeatable or non primary aspects would appear. The primary test involves 2 among other things as is well known. Systems may not be created in any other manner than deduction. Systems have integrity because they do not fail in the limiting cases (iterative refinement all the way to the granularity imposed by the market construct) Markets are not intellectually pure, that is for sure. But they make up for this in their pragmatic simplicity. Nesting ratios are not related to functional multiples. In your use of profiles, you merge the variables but that does not, however, permit using a prime number to determine observability of fractal nesting. The nesting principle, instead, is based upon completion of the internal structural elements of one pattern found in all fractals. We use only one pattern that stems from using only deduction with respect to all cases. The deeply inherent aspect of patterns in systems of nested fractals is a singularity. The single repeated pattern in a given fractal includes the requirement that there is a minimum logical symmetry overlap. It had to be this tenacious and peculiar. I understand why speaking of nested fractals demands a definition. This is probably the first appearance of a rigorous definition. Markets came into being from the rules of their operation. The parts made the whole. It was wonderful to have the past coarse granularity to assure profits Having so few means of interacting (orders) was terrific as well. Now, the beauty of the hugenss is so thrilling. Today's money velocities were not imaginable 50 years ago. A 10,000 contract level in ES is the way it is nowadays. How it all works is based on reasoning through a deductive process. Pragmatically speaking, a person just goes through the process of building a differentiated mind in order to process, in real time, trading on a resonable fractal. For me it is the observable fractals on the market display. There is one pattern and three questions are handled by doing the MADA routine. I am just engaged mentally. To relate the process involved in pragmatic terms. It goes at a rate that is about four times the rate of human speaking a sufficient narrative. It is the last stage of the four stages referred to commonly with respect to human effectiveness. This thread takes into account all that is required to continuously and seemlessly take the market's offer. as part of trading intraday, a person keeps track of several of the nested fractals. commonly, this includes: BBT, TAPES, TRAVERSES and CHANNELS. Most people consider the sub BBT fractal and a price bar as well. There is no Gap re ES during RTH. Within about 30 seconds of open the gap is handled. Soon global variable functional capability will handle this on a lot of platforms. Then volume will no longer be anchored artificially to a traditional axis, either. There are factors such as WMCN, WWT, and IBGS's. The pattern is compressed or accordianed (stretched) as well; this is all part of MADA, however. Not having to deal with any anomolies, since they do not exist, is pleasant as well. The cases of CP2 and the regions of CP4 address these matters. The human factor is wonderful. Having an emotional context of support, comfort and confidence has raised an expression of trust. Trust is enabled quite reasonably and normally as a consequence of the roles of the two partners in this trading. The "process" that repeats is: tells>>> acceptance>>> value>>> trust. It is an iterative feedback positive loop. What is seen is 10% of perception. The differentiated mind provides the other 90% as inference. In non differentiated minds, fear, anxiety and anger is the result of the inference vacuum those other people decided to create. It can lead to expressed OCD behavior. In trading, the bottom line is partnership and responsibility. There is no intuition because the market is counterintuitive. People either do the above or they do not. The whole approach is a filter that works perfectly to separate one group from the other. It is as if the two groups looking at PEP, PVT, SCT and SSR are looking at and describing two entirely different things. It is neatly kept that way by how the mind works. Because perception is 90% inference, it is not possible for a non differentiated mind to even glimpse what is going on for those who are conducting this thread in such a successful and truly magnificent manner. No one is excluded; it always has been a personal decision by the individual. Everyone owns their decisions. See you all in Vegas. I am not only bionic (now with the eye lens replacements) as they say here; I am pumped.