sure, i'm bored, so i'll hang around a bit longer. one places their own subjective parameters onto the market to extract order from chaos. this "forced" order is not objective but rather subjective, this is proven by the fact that the market works. multiple subjective parameters providing differing information, to the users, resulting in a myraid of opinion, at any and every given time. if order within the chaos was objective, the market would cease to function, since objective order could be exploited in total. the good logic professor has not reached the point in his journey to understand the impossibility of his claims. hope this makes sense.
And some individuals spew verbage on subject matter they no nothing about as a way to seem grander than they really are because to admit the are deficient of specific knowledge of specific subject matter is a sign of weakness and a small penis. I'm joking about the penis but I would never go to a dentist for heart surgery or why would I listen to the ramblings of a vaccuum cleaner tech when my Lambo needs a tune up.
You make a stellar and beautiful point. Signal to noise ratio is a deep and consistent guide for risk where market pace no longer allows you to "sense" risk. Look also in some threads for tha allied subject of volatility compression as a leading indicator. Lets go exploring a little. Look from farenough "outside" that you can see the market piping along in the contrext of its harmonics and the S and R boundaries for the last significant while (think with a phosophy of History that is symmetric. Danto , Columbia U. )). Fast pace (lowest risk) transports price so well that noise is trivial. Approaching boundaries is where trendlines grow more and more significantly closer to the boundary (the distance to the boundary actually becomes less than the volatility of the trend). This is the beginning of volatility compression (nickel is just getting his first wake up call on this in this thread). DBphoenix could never bound trends and onlt deployed trendlines. Compression starts when the left channel line bashes into the boundary of the market (the S/R thing). Momentum measures all declne and what begins to stand out is "noise. This is the time when random walk and chaos seem to do better if a macro consideration of a "market" is going on. We successinvely notice the lower frequencies are booted one harmonic after another. We have noise and non trending and the lateral goes through three stages: congestion (slalom trading gaussians of volume); convergence (an asymmetri pennant that will soon fail the behave ( by not following the rule assigned to it normally when no volatility shift and momentum shift influence it); and centering ( maximum noise to signal ratio (signal to noise is turned upside down to measure risk at the point) The Gaussian has gone to DU and flaked out a while and whne it reemerges it has like the faults reversed its polarity. The initation of compression when the channel is first truncated is the initial profit taking point (exit on the left side which equals S or R) and then as risk increases sufficiently slaloming stops. You can calibrate the the risk to know when to quit by how high the low the signal to noise ratio is (work upside down and judge the max noise to sig ratio)). This gives you all you need to have annotaed for sidelining in a given market based upon noise. this also is a leading indicator of FBO's and it also allows you to delineate between reversals (descending noise) and retraces (increasing noise).. There is one other place this stuff happens. Away from the S and R. Way way from S and R. Here on this market operating point, you get to deal with whether a market is functional. Markets do not always behave and function. They are "open" but they are shut down. Once you can handle the boundaries of an operating market, you then get to be able to handle knowing when a market shuts down. This high risk land where the big guys get new ones reamed because of two propensities: not sidelining before they cannot sideline (they are too smart to) and having to sit in the market when the market is shut down. One a dynamic transition the other a mistaken setting situation. Proflogic has both of these really aced. Another guy (can't remember handle) who made seven points here shows he could handle it in the future in a thread on indicators. Low volume is what shuts down markets more than closing bells. Supreme risk is at hand when a market shuts down. Noise is rampant. All of the above applies except their is no channel truncation; instead congestion reigns then convergence and finally centering. Obviously skilled traders handle congestion be rythmically slaloming as long as it is worth it (well into convergence). Now the other half.....LOL.. Knowing noise....you know its retiremnet and when to come out and play again. Pop in note well FBO, retrace and reversal stuff and by that time you have your very well extended channel, lower risk and only incidental noise. And definitely not a non trending situation. I always used to think of noise and db's when I read dbphoenix. did you hear any supply and demand here??
Why don't you start your own thread? I'm sure there are a lot of people at ET who would like to talk about your problems with you.
Spoken like the Marketsurfer you are . . . you can throw the frisbee but offended when someone throws it back. Typical. You are just upset I caught you in a lie. I look forward to having a battle of wits with you in person someday. If you ever come out from behind the moniker. As far as the second part and response to Gann, you will be surprised I agree, in part. That was part of my research. The part I don't agree with is that the specific envoironment makes the information exploited from that data set objective not subjective. I will parry . . . no more engaging on my part . . . until you strike first. I have the patience of Job.
Was this your thread? Sorry, I didn't realize you were speaking to yourself all this time. I guess that means since I promised your alter ego I wouldn't engage him any longer then that would go for you too. So be it.
So with all the people "believing" and "placing" a subjective parameter for a trend... There is a subjective significance towards trend.... So... then keeping it subjective... what would be a significant "filter" to extract trends? Even more, would it be possible to "extract" a specific subjective parameter via statistics? What significance does statistics hold in a multiple subjective parameter driven market?
No, all threads are for all members, as far as I know ET policy. How about you stay somewhat on topic and cut out the rudeness?
Shouldn't the question be whether the trend followers on this thread add to their existing profitable positions? Of course if they did they would be muti-millionaires. Trade-ya mentioned the Euro. A genuine trend follower who opened a small position 2 or 3 years ago - say 5 contracts, and at every confimation increased his position would be up several million by now. Why didn't all the trend followers on ET do it? Because in reality they have no confidence that trends will continue. True trend followers (the ones who really add to positions and stay long term) are rare, they are some sort of trading genius. We hear about these rare cases and try to convince ourselves to be like them, but it is going against our natural inclinations and few can do it.
A Trend?: It is generally UP from 1934 or so. Seems like it could be a trend to me. Is it because of GNP growth? Population growth? Labor efficiency increases (technology advancement)? Beats me. Will it continue in our trading lifetimes? Probably. But is it tradable on smaller time scales, so that we may be able to avoid some down years and better use our trading money? Yes, but it requires solid discipline and much work...