+================================ Borrowed ''I think ''quote from Chasinfla. [50] Still like 50% DIA,SPY, S& P futures,QQQ have been bearish for the last 10 days approximately; my short sell lost [$ .06 indicating the bears might not be as strong as thought late last week] [50 again] Think the most likely scenerio is nice strong upmove in SPY & QQQ this week ; perhaps as hot as an Arkansas duck shoot helped by 50 & 200 buldozers. [50 again] SPY,DIA QQQ are real close approximately to 50 day moving averages. Least likely perhaps but important downtrend ,would be closes below 50 day moving averages. +======= ''Be diligent '' =Solomon
One problem is purely practical: it is that the charts are programmed in Flash format and my programmer is in vacation - also I have to pay him for doing the job and it is very costful - secondly if you read Mandelbrott he relates time and activity http://www.elliottwave.com/education/SciAmerican/Mandelbrot_Article2.htm): "To create a multifractal from a unifractal, the key step is to lengthen or shorten the horizontal time axis so that the pieces of the generator are either stretched or squeezed. At the same time, the vertical price axis may remain untouched. In illustration 2, the first piece of the unifractal generator is progressively shortened, which also provides room to lengthen the second piece. After making these adjustments, the generators become multifractal (M1 to M4). Market activity speeds up in the interval of time represented by the first piece of the generator and slows in the interval that corresponds to the second piece (illustration 3)." What Mandelbrott describes is a pure formal mathematical procedure it isn't a physical model nevertheless he relates time to activity concretly it is volume and that's what I rationally modelised not on pure abstract mathematic plan but on physical plan (the same for Einstein who made the physical model whereas he used Lorentz mathematical formalisation : he said he was a bad mathematician and without Lorentz preceding work he couldn't achieve to formalise his physical model). So my time unit is an artefact from activity and I can only do correlation with the real time clock and unfortunately statistical correlation is never precise by their very stochastic nature. That's why I said that roughly my unit time should be divided by a factor of 1 or 2 depending on the speed of the market (generally it is rather 2 by what I have observed; it is rather 1 or even more if market consolidates before so that time is slowed) and that correspond to the idea of Mandelbrott: the price level doesn't change but the time should vary following an unknown law for him since it is mathematical formalisation and not a physical model but that would cause burst of volatility. So rationally time should not be as precise as price as long as the law is unknown. And in my case rationally - I mean economically - it should be unknown since people don't buy a time but a price. Of course it will occur at a certain time but this time should rationally random around an average time. For example for my forecast calculated on Thursday close for Friday's session the top was supposed to be done theorically at time unit 3 on scale 1 (= hourly scale) since 1 time unit = 1 hour and since I said above one need generally to divide by a factor of 2 this would give an estimation of top at 9:30 + 1:30 = 11:00. Nevertheless this is based on observation not on strong modelisation like my price model so that I don't trust it at the moment. Furthermore market can follow a counterclock path (which should correspond to the concept of retracement in time - and not only price - for elliottists or ganntistes) so that one must take this also into account by substracting the time value from a box cyle of 10 times unit which is also an experimental observation. So all I know about time is only based on experimental correlation between my time unit which is rather market's economical activity interpretated as time and not on a strong deterministic model so I don't feel like indicate a time on the chart. Also the time is only available when market is following a trend and not when it consolidates like today : You can see below that the max consolidation target which is called base in my vocabulary was 9072 and the associated time unit is 25 theorical hour but this is for the projection at 8921 and not for the consolidation at 9072 (for real we made only 9068 this I can estimate by real time calculation or use cama truncation but I won't enter in details here). 1 h 27/06/03 - 15:30 (Close: 8992.49 - DJI_60_1h_030627_153000_sf.txt) 1 base min base: 8993.61 proj: 8978.33 02:00 (17:30) | Open=8990.74 25 proj min base: [9072.98] proj: 8921.47 26:00 (41:30) | 2ndHH=9068.05 80 base max base: 9167.56 proj: [9442.27] 81:00 (96:30) 6 proj max base: 9041.96 proj: 9026.40 07:00 (22:30) | 1stLL < 1stHH=9036.95 In conclusion at the moment I don't work on absolute time but on relative time. The concept of relative time is classical since Einstein: time is the coïncidence of two events (for example the event that a train arrive at a station and the pin of the clock indicate 12 O'clock). So suffice that I know that when the price arrives near my theorical target this is the time. I only consider the first time it arrives the second time is another event and shouldn't be considered - it is often only the retest for making the classical lower high or higher low of Gann. In the future I will work on a determistic model of time which should not be based on economical rationality directly but based on constraint imposed by my model on time then I should indicate time on my model with more strong certainty and higher precision I hope as precise as my price model although I haven't yet began the research because I'm fed up of doing laboratory research: I'm not paid to do that like Mandelbrott paid by IBM . Fundamental research is an adventure and can be frustrating since you are not sure to achieve and find something: it is the big unknown and I don' like that as for myself I only engage when I see some light in the tunel. So for time I hopefully see some light but I wait that it become more intense that is to say I wait for inspiration to burst . It is the way I function with creativity I let the time go because I can't force my imagination. When you invent something it is more a matter of imagination and only after a matter of science that's why a Super Cray has never invented anything because it is only capable of syllogism and not of creativity. If you want a secret: I often use forums for brainstorming that's one of the practical mean I excite my neurons to make new connexions and create new ideas .
What I do practically if I want an estimation of time is to do real time calculation. For example for yesterday real-time was giving this (this was actually available on my site but I didn't explain yet in my guide how to use it because it is the latest addition): <IMG SRC=http://harrytrader.membres.jexiste.org/real_time_projection.gif> so at 11:30 hourly bar (near the bottom of the day) I know that I am warned that the consolidation could be lowered from 9072 to 9065.60 theorically (in real we made 9068 and I had a wave ratio at 9067 so that I could expect this noise in fact ; there was also cama 4th level at 9066) and secondly by using 5 minutes scale which I don't use on charts I have a rough estimation of time first for 9042 target and then for 9061 target on this micro-scale respectively for 13:35 (calculation made at 13:05 bar) and 14:10 (calculation made at 13:25 bar) whereas it has been done for real at 13:24 and 13:35. So for the first calculation there was an error of ten minutes which is practically acceptable - since you know at least that it is the max time - but for the second calculation there was a huge error of 30 minutes : by experience it is due to distribution phase period and if you look what happened at 14H10 the trend was exactly broken at that minute so although the high was done faster than theorical calculation you can guess that you could expect something interesting after this theorical time window is closed. In fact when time accelerates - and you have an objective criteria to mesure this acceleration here - this is the sign of blowing top coming so the "error" is not just noise and can instead be exploited as information. P.S.: remark also that the Highest High was at 9068 and that the following Lower High was at 9065.60 which was exactly the theorical calculation on hourly scale. This is not coïncidence and very often the market makes a second retest when it has gone too far relatively above the theorical value (often to make an "attractor" in the chaos theory vocabulary like a golden ratio or cama ratio or extreme probability zone). It is in fact at this second retest that Gann says that it is the safiest point to take position but he doesn't know how to determine this lower high whereas I have some practical tool to do at least for real time because for higher scale I don't have enough database yet.
Hmm the server seems to have some problem so you don't see any picture. Today is an excellent illustration of <FONT COLOR=BLUE>INVARIANCE OF PRICE</FONT> (read again Mandelbrott's article extract I quoted above) and <FONT COLOR=RED>EXHAUSTION OF "TIME"</FONT> it would be more rational to say <FONT COLOR=RED>"ACTIVITY"</FONT>: The target was theorically 8874.78 (in real we made a low at 8871.20 so 3/4 points error but on upper scale the support was 8870 so this error is expected) but if you look at time it should be at time unit 27 whereas we made the low straight at the opening. To tell the truth we made a <FONT COLOR=RED>counterclock path</FONT> (see how time sequence on the left has been inverted at lines with time sequence 6 and 23 below) and that always surprises the crowd whereas it is in fact rational in regard to my model. <P>1 h 30/06/03 - 15:30 (Close: 8994.94 - DJI_60_1h_030630_153000_sf.txt)<BR>1 base min base: 9005.27 proj: 8974.72 02:00 (17:30)<BR>26 proj min base: <FONT color=#0000ff><A href="javascript:alert('9041.16 @ 15:29')"><FONT color=#0000ff>9042.13</FONT></A></FONT> proj: <FONT color=#008000><A href="javascript:alert('1st Lowest Low = intraday low = 8871.41 @ 10:05')"><FONT color=#008000>8874.78</FONT></A></FONT> 27:00 (42:30)<BR>91 base max base: 9153.57 proj: 9463.43 92:00 (107:30)<BR>3 proj max base: <A href="javascript:alert('9026.57 @ 14:53 thrust up to 9030.44 @ 14:56 | Consolidation down to 9016.65 @ 14:57 | Retest 9026.24 @ 15:06 | Last Higher Low before the break 9018.89 @ 15:11 || Break 9026.91 @ 3:12 | Pullback 9024.14 @ 3:13')">9025.52</A> proj: <FONT color=#0000ff><A href="javascript:alert('9050.68 @ 15:57 = Top of the day')"><FONT color=#0000ff>9047.97</FONT></A></FONT> 04:00 (19:30)</P> Fundamentally finding physical laws consists in searching for invariance like the Constants of Universe in Astronomy. Here the special prices I calculate are invariances that's why I prefer to look at price rather than time. That's why they sell time with options because time is the variable component rationally (economically) speaking. Now because of constraint on price and the fractal nature (but fractals alone doesn't explain the behavior of the market if so Mandelbrott wouldn't have said that he is very far from being able to make forecast because forecast needs a physical model not only a mathematical formalisation) in my model there should be also some constraint on time but I didn't look at it thoroughly yet because as I said I wait for inspiration to come .
Interesting, saw Bob Prechter on Bloomberg this am, he is still real bearish. I liked his website example[old but might eventually repeat] of wave selling Kimberly-Clark. Prefer my own charts, more simple but includes complex number of moving averages. Got the same result. +================================== ''Be diligent''-Solomon. trader king
You could think that the counterclock path (or gann's retracement in time) is just imagination, well in physical appearance time is always directed towards the right arrow but in profound but invisible "reality" (so what is reality the physical appearance or the hidden one ?) time was directed towards the left arrow this is obvious following the successive higher lows at the bottom compared to the model (remark how trend accelerated after the market made a higher low at 8891.09 and the theorical value was also 8891.09 equal to the 1/100 point - remark also how each point was a potential buying zone since price never came back towards these zones): <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=286444>
Gann cannot show you the reality of retracement in time so explicitly since time is always represented in physical space whereas in this other space you LITTERALY SEE the arrow in the LEFT direction so the market seems to travel in the past (is the market a time machine ?).
i am not here to bash fibonacci retracements. i even occasionally use them. however... just about any pullback is going to be a fib retracement of some kind. then in hindsight, people will say, "it was a .382 retracement!" if it retraced further, then they'll say, "it was a .5 retracement!"
That's the point : my model DOES NOT use Fibonacci it is not based on NUMEROLOGY like Fibonacci it is based on ECONOMETRIC MODELISATON ... I already said like you that if you use Fibonacci you have multiple combinations possible but it is not the case of my model. For example my bottom at 8874 (see line 26 proj min base: 9042.13 proj: 8874.78 27:00 (42:30)) is UNIQUE. Since it is unique I am able to say if Fibo is an illusion or not but those who only use Fibo cannot make such a proof or very difficultly. So next I will show how it is possible to demonstrate if Fibo is true or not. Secondly when you calcute retracement in fibo you do it AFTER the market has already made a top or a low, whereas my points are calculated BEFORE market opens, before even GLOBEX's opening so it is true forecast whereas fibo retracement can ressemble curve fitting since one can chose arbitrarily any high and low as you put it. So it is only with a true model INDEPENDANT of fibo (that is to say that doesn't use any fibo numbers or ratios as parameters at input) that you can judge if fibo retracement is pure imagination or not. As for that precise day many elliotists were surprised by this bottom whereas from the point of view of my model this is the easiest day for novices to trade because when market made such a bottom he is much more clean than other days like Thursday when he is consolidating (a day likeThursday should be avoided by novices).