Joe, you make some rather inappropriate remarks. There are probably many people who are scientists here in ET. One of their reference bases is the US repository for such work. For your convenience check it out. When you get to six consecutive citations where the reference code is assigned, consider how many more citations you must go through to arrive at a point where someone else is handed out six consecutive numbers. When a person is running two of five divisions of the largest coalition (consortiumj) of academic organizations in the world, being a PI concurrently on several projects in several distinct fields is a possibility. My record is clear and it is exceptional. A person quoted a statement that is in the form of a null hypothesis test. In binary vector deductive analysis (scientific), it is not possible to make a statement that is more succinct. Being succinct in analysis is not a handicap. It requires statements to be made at the highest level of the hierarchy of principles that could be involved. Here is my statement: "Making money ends most often by making money not continuing" It says what the null test is for completing the extraction of a full segment of profits. Completion of taking the offer of the market is best measured in five segments across a window. A continual test of making money is performed on all fronts. I use 10 to 12 specific logic sets. These sets feed into what may be construed as an optimization circuit or logic set. Everything that is supposed to happen happens in the correct order of events. Since most traders who use optimization have to consider a multiple of the market's capacity, this optimization is moslty related to optimizing partial fills without affecting the market. Under optimum conditions, the making of money comes to an end during a hold of a postion. Having an ultra expert approach to making realized profits optimum is what it is all about. For example, look at a Wall on the DOM. Plot its values over time. No trades took place; those people just did stuff that didn't affect optimizing making money. Joe, you are an example of a person who slams other people. You slam the same people over and over. You do it because you are fulfilling your needs. No one expects your needs to change. Your comments about me are just part of the interplay of different kinds of people on ET. They have nothing to do with my walk or my talk. Trends end. The end is designated FTT or ftt in a set of nested fractals whose contruction is structurally determinant. Volume leads price. It is the equivalent of "shooting fish in a barrel". I could care less that you do not "get it". Keep slamming me. Fulfill your continuing needs.
I am not going to doubt you. However are you certain the improvements came from jack logics teaching-- or perhaps from your own self? In other words. Could the jacklogic material be programmed and that is all you need? Or is your input required making it a discretionary system wherein your improvements you give jack logic credit for are actually due to your improvement as a trader? These are very critical distinctions. Hobo
Indeed, they are critical distinctions, but neither of those individuals gives a complete system, they say that up front. They do not specify risk management parameters, this is where the individual trader comes in. The key is that volume and price both oscillate. Leaning to see the price structure within the parameters of those oscillations is what they teach. R2R is a volume oscillation, as is B2B, R2B, and B2R. Price oscillations can be read within the context of a properly constructed momo indicator, volume is normalized within the chart structure in this particular case. Both methodologies teach one to recognize the location of price within a structural sequence and then determine What Must Come Next. When this is determined, take timely action based on your decision. Once this skill is learned, trend traders will make consistent money. To summarize, I use the methods taught by those two in conjunction with my own risk profile to get results. You should know that both of these camps are working on automated software. One has completed the process the other is very close from what I understand. You don't need to software to trade the methodology, it is for shortening the learning curve I presume.
Thank you RCG You do understand what you are saying right? That this is truly revolutionary material. These 2 researchers have discovered the true essence of price movement? I find that incredulous and ridiculous that 2 guys from Ohio would crack the markets code when teams of quants fail time and time again. The true tell or smoking gun is neither appear to be living the lifestyle or gathering the accolades/fame such a discovery would warrant. I think jack logic claims to have been no Images for the noble pride as a result of his work. However independent research can't verify this in any way However, I guess stranger things have happened. I wish you the best. Hobo
trend monitoring and analysis from dodd/Granville up to when I started trading in 1957. You see the philosophy of system is item 68 and by the time of the 5 to 20 ma portfolio management in terms of trend monitoring and analysis became items 70 and 71. A while back I provided an answer to you on Dunnigan. He appears on this sheet. you may want to remind yourself to thank other people who inform your ignorance. There are some things about me that are unique and forwarding to those who can get their minds differentiated. You are defintiely in the dark by all of your own choices. I'm not. I have the beef.
Oh, it's you Surf. I would postulate that there is no code to crack. Trading is like playing Linebacker. Read and react. Learn to read the play faster, so that you will react faster. Have in place a set of rules to adapt if you are wrong. Most people short into raging bulls and buy into growling bears. Those bulls and bears will show telltale signs of market fatigue. Sit patiently and wait it out.
I have no issue with your post rcg. Basically your saying trading is subjective when done with TA. That makes sense to me. You react based on what you think is best based on the past. Sure there may be an edge in intuition for a few savants. But I'm more interested in quantified tested scalable systems that contain verifiable edges for the season of the market. Cure alls or gifted savants are not my game. Hobo
Good luck with that, Surf. Any consistently quantifiable statistical edge will be arbed out of existence, you know that. Besides, whatever those quants decide to do, I will see it in a timely manner and act accordingly.