You continue to try to specify a number of "units" to a trend and that is wrong. Each Trend is unique in the number of oscillations it contains. Those oscillations are strictly defined within a ridged chart increment environment and it will sustain itself until a specific rules based reversal takes place to reverse that Trend. For this matter consolidation can be strictly defined and viewed as well. When working in a fixed environment of Price and Momentum, price can only Trend or Consolidate. By outlining strict rules in that environment, Price trends approximately 90% of the time and consolidates the other 10%. You don't believe that or can't see that because you do not know how to set up a ridged chart increment environment, apply a fixed set of Rules to it and stick by it. Don't feel bad, most traders don't have the discipline to do it and that is why they expound that "Trends only exist is hindsight". It's easier to continue thinking as you do then to do some fixed research to pop your own bubble. You asked a question in another thread, which I attached below. You never answered it. I can only imagine it is because it required some thought on your part, some time to work it out and the end result of your opinion getting a hole poked in it. Again, don't feel bad, traders don't like their world turned upside down but then again neither does anyone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from marketsurfer: --price moves 5 units up, will the next unit of time/price be up? does the 5 units of price in an increasing amount mean that the 6th unit of time/price be greater than the 5th unit? of course not. heads/tails is the perfect analogy. best, surfer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To begin with, Trends are not hypothetical so they can not be created in hypothetical environments. Price Oscillations must be specifically defined to be labeled correctly. Price must be viewed as well in a non-varying/specific volume bar or contract bar format generated by a data provider attuned to building the bars accurately and consistently. Next add a simple but smoothed momentum indicator tuned to visually verify the creation of these oscillations at extreme and non-extreme levels. Next provide the following needed information generated from "A" single chart for you price situation, based on (1 bar = Average Daily Volume divided by 140) using the above parameters. [140 is simple created to easily view the Trend and can be adjusted for your own clarity within this specific environment] What was the previous extreme oscillation top in relation to the current price? (Be specific in relation to price oscillation outcomes) What was the previous minor oscillation top in relation to the current price? (Be specific in relation to price oscillation outcomes) What was the previous extreme oscillation bottom in relation to the current price? (Be specific in relation to price oscillation outcomes) What was the previous minor oscillation bottom in relation to the current price? (Be specific in relation to price oscillation outcomes) What was the sequential outcomes of the previous 5 or 6 extreme oscillations? (Be specific in relation to price oscillation outcomes) What was the sequential outcomes of the previous 5 or 6 minor oscillations? (Be specific in relation to price oscillation outcomes) Provide me the following information and I will answer your question with better than 90% accuracy. Without it and I agree with your head & tails analogy. Provide me the specifics of what I ask and your head & tails analogy flys out the window so fast it seemingly disappears. If you do the work, the points I've requested will flawless plot out so no fudging.
Being able to read the strength of the trend is determined first by being able to read the oscillations and at what level they are being created. A non-extreme support oscillation creating a higher low in an Bull Trend wouldn't be as strong as an extreme support oscillation creating a higher low in an Bull Trend. This is why it takes a coordinated effort of Price and Momentum in a strict chart increment environment to both "SEE TREND" and successfully trade it based on the strengths and weaknesses the oscillations in that trend create for you.
What a bunch of mumbo jumbo, BS. The slope of a line can be determined by any 2 points and will give you a trend. The only question is: how much deviation from this particular "trend' direction do you consider necessary to pronounce another trend?
Sorry if that was over your head. It is for most people until they see is laid out in real-time. Dismissing something as "BS" is typical when one doesn't understand the concepts. Deny, deny deny. If you answered that question you would see for yourself but then that would take effort on your part. Effort you do not wish to expend. The slope of the line from any 2 points in no way shape or form determines trend. It determines degree of slope. There is no way to determine Price will continue in the direction of your slope from just two points. That's like saying we are in a Bull Trend if any two points create a higher high and a higher low. The ocurance you stated happens in both consolidation and in bear trends.
I can read and think just fine, thank you for asking. I'm quite versed in Physics, Algebra, Calculus, Analytical Analysis and Quantum Problem Solving as well. This could digress to name calling, which you seem to have a solid handle on but I will not play that game. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. We will leave this at; you are the master of your environment, I am the master of mine and those environments lay on opposing planes. May you someday turn the corner with an open mind to view what lies in realms you currently have no knowledge of.
Hey einstein when you might want to add logic to your list, because when you make the equivalent error of dividing by zero, people might notice. LOL, Fine of course finding evidence of a trend in the past is possible, extrapolating that to PREDICT the future is where it gets a little fuzzy.
Charlie Dow aka Proflogic aka Bill Schamp has some logic that does not stack up to close scrutiny. Just like that in hindsight an MA can be proven to have worked so is his method. Find the discussion of his method and you'll discover that he is insisting on certain values, certain timeframes (arrh should say volume bars) and that these values are constantly changing.... And that just nothing short of curve fitting which looks good in hindsight. The proverbial brown matter as usual presented as some mumbo jumbo holy grail.... vital analitics
Logic is implied. So is common sense. Thanks for the Einstein compliment . . . there was a good reason he left "Das Heimatland". It had to do with closemindedness. No one made the error of dividing by zero but you. Trends can't be predicted but you wouldn't understand that concept because you can't understand the realm it is being presented. You think trends have to have a predictive quality to be useful and that is the error of your approach trying to interpret my explanation. As I stated, it is no use commenting on what I am telling you if you can't or won't grasp or entertain the concepts. You sound like a typical German energy trader. Eine geschlossene Meinung ist ein schreckliches Ding verschwendet zu werden.