I won't give the link publicly because I don't want to be accused of publicity. If you want it send me a message in my mailbox (but I think it is full so wait that I empty it before hee hee).
Harry! My jaw is on the ground! I CANNOT Believe I have never seen your posts before. I need to open my freakn EYES! This post is so profound in its way of encapsulating the mutually exclusive simplicity of cause and effect as it pertains to the market. Punctuating the intrinsic "complexity" of market by rationalizing the inherent uncertainty maximisation concept is brilliant. Although, I've discussed derivatives of this with my mentor, I know I haven't quite heard it as well stated as you just put it. I have to admit, I never thought I'd ever read a post of this caliber on an Internet board, much less E.T. for further admission to skepticism on my part, I was reading one of your above posts with Graph and realized that you had violated a major Elliot Wave rule. Namely, that wave #3 is always the longest wave. Then began to read further and you explained it. I fully concur and have myself been trying to find a middle ground with my wave counts. All packages I've demo'd including Advanced GET just don't get it! Bravo to you for explaining throughoutly the entirety of your conceptualizations. I would like to learn more about your techniques and trading strategies. cheers- momo
Yeah I know that elliottists would put the wave 3 on the next lower low (and subsequently wave 4 would be on a lower high so that the overlapping problem with wave 1 will also be erased) but if I do that I violate MY own rules hee hee ! So let's say for the moment it's another kind of waves until I solve the bridge between the two by creating perhaps some kind of dictionary or translation rules between the two. Remember that the purpose of elliott waves rules are to count the waves because their wave counting are subjective whereas my counting wave is objective. Nevertheless within my framework I don't really need to count waves and calculate fibo ratios since you can see the form of the curves : it's kind of <font color=magenta>circular strings</font> so what you see is directly or litteraly <font color=magenta>cycle picture</font> that one can translate into waves but the underground hidden "reality" if I can express thing like that is <font color=magenta>cycle</font>. Perhaps I should call my stuff <font color=magenta>String Theory</font> to distinguish from <font color=blue>(Elliott) Wave Theory</font>. There would then be even a funny analogy with the same evolution in physics when wave-quantum theory has been witching to the so called famous "Super String Theory" ( see http://superstringtheory.com/ ) - which tries to make the <font color=magenta>Grand Unification</font> between Wave-Quantum and Einstein's gravitational law. Of course fondamentally there is no physical link between my string stuff and physics super string theory, it's just an analogy perhaps there are some kind of more profound link but I won't look for it hee hee !
(harrytrader's mailbox): Do you think you could rewrite some of your posts in laymen's terms so we could better understand what you are trying to say? harrytrader: EDIT------>COPY [hee hee!]-----> PASTE . . . PASTE . . . PASTE . . .
No problem. The second market variable, volume, leads price a little and it is neat to use the P,V relation when trading. this makes trading more of a KISS operation.
Volume is already integrated in my equations and reflected in price. Of course nothing can prevent from using volume or any other other indicator (including trend or candlestick) as a confirming signal but it is just in real time whereas I talk about forecast before market's opening that's what make trading less stressing because you know things before it arrives. Also indicators are just proxies not the direct object of trading so I prefer to cope directly with price. My screen is a nuded chart of dow jones sometimes I put macd or volume but It's more for visual attraction.
Today we have approached the important level of 9153 but we didn't touch it. BTW why did I draw a big line on that level ? Because each point on the blue line has a counterpart on the green line. The counterpart of 9153 is 9269 which is just above the high of the week. The blue line is the minimum level necessary to reach again the 9269 level. The forecast for today reflected that: we had 9151 as the limit, we stopped just before at 9146 and consolidated down to 9074 before closing between the two: <IMG SRC="http://harrytrader.membres.jexiste.org/dji_100703_for_110703.gif"> Just for remark: the bullish consolidation was expected because we have made the target of 9010 on daily cycle (we had a thrust under and I will perhaps explain the problem of thrust under support and how to cope with that in another post - not sure if I don't have time this we) and it is clearly reflected in the color trend of my ewaves: <IMG SRC="http://harrytrader.membres.jexiste.org/ewave_100703_for_110703.gif">