harry if I learned anything it's that there's people making money with all kinds of shit. traditional or not.
You're right I forgot to define it on the homepage. In the guide it is explained: "Each point on a line has a counterpart on the other line we call a dual. The dual of a projection point is a base point and vice versa." So for the example (the url above doesn't seem to work anymore then see http://www.econometric-wave.com/market/dji/calendar/2003/0903/040903/slideshow4.html) : - the dual of 9558 on the target line (light blue line) is 9455 on the baseline (dark blue line) - the dual of 9568 on the target line is 9462 on the baseline (dark blue line) When the target has been reached market should return to its base (dark blue line) - like a spaceship, before returning in the space (the light blue line) again (so the rebounce today this Monday was just this following logic since we made a bottom Friday at 9461 just one point below the base of 9462).
That's my advantage on Jack Hershey: at least even if you don't understand a word about what I say you recognise that I am a great artist because I chose the colors myself
Did I say the contrary ? I speak of analysts not of traders. And when I say analysts it is generic term there are of course people who can do both well if they can put aside their analyst side when they trade: because when one trades it is with one's guts not with one's brain - if I can caricature the thing like that of course . What I want to say is that it is difficult to do that with traditional TA generally because it is not within the framework and when it is it is very complex due to the number of rules (several dozens for elliott) whereas I have only a few rules, moreover my rules are derived from rational and quantified (economic or fondamental) model : when it is rational it is robust. When it is not you can do whatever statistic tests (parametrics or non-parametrics) you want you will never be sure because statistical tests are valid without doubtful premisces only when the fundamental law is known. Proof by design is the only true proof and statistic can only be done above that to support it or to disqualify it but never to prove it per se. Of course it is very new and the majority of people never adapt easily to new things. And one is not obliged to adapt if not necessary or not desired. But it is the trend of progress : if you don't anticipate new thing one day you can have bad surprised. (In fact I created this model because I needed something new than my primitive scalping style which works well on the open-cry but not so well when open cried disappeared. Nevertheless I didn't expect to make such a huge discovery my ambition was far from that at the beginning).
But if you had made the effort to understand the slideshow about the 02/09/03 forecast for next days (since it is daily scale and there are ten points that is to say roughly 10 days but it can be 5 to 15 days because "time" can compress/decompress - in fact time doesn't exist really in the model it is an artefact but that's another story hee hee) you would not be surprised if the close yesterday below 9523.16 - confirmed by the opening below this level at opening - resulted in a great plunge today that accelerated below the max base of 9455. Since I talk in this thread about monitoring a plan with dynamic analysis you can see that the plan today (most right picture) was coherent with the plan of 02/09/03 (most left picture) since we close below 9521.88 and so are completely on the blue descending consolidation line. <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=328311>
you are just beating around bush . If you want us to praise you and kiss your ass for for your revoluationry discovery , you got to let us understand it first. or are we mortals just too stupid to comprehend this grand market theory of yours... I think the question we are most interesting in is so "how do you make money with it??"
I don't see the link between this thread and Bush which shows me that you have just made a nasty post and I decided that I will drop straight away that kind of guys with the ignore button (do the same with me : THANKS ) P.S.: if you don't know how to use this stuff, I don't care. And if you worry for others don't care also for about 250 guys that I will form to use that. I am at the beginning stage of building learning materials for them (the slideshow is part of this kind of material. This is not the simplest case but I have remarked that a case that is too simple will not allow people to adapt for other real cases. Of course there will be more simple ones for beginners but some people are not beginners any more with this model. It is a model not a method: you can build many methods upon it exclusively or in combination with others like Camarilla - this latter is my preferred one for which I give levels freely - since the original site make pay that 200$/month although it is not big money - and in the approach not as model but as method it should be very similar to Cama ; today would be a good illustration how my model can prevent Cama strategic errors but as I said I won't deal with method for the moment - and I will talk about these possible methods when learning matherials will be enough for the model.).
As I said in another thread http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21815&perpage=6&pagenumber=2 although my model is a quantitative finance model it is perhaps the only one that makes the bridge with traditional TA (in fact it is not only the bridge it is the whole Unification of Efficient Market Theory, Dow and Elliott theories. Underneath is in fact the modern evolution of Dow Theory) contrary to the massive current trend of quantitative finance who makes adoration of the Ito lemma - which I would rather consider as the biblical origin of their sin : most quants are heretics for me and should be judged by the Inquisition .