Advanced Structured Forex Trading

[Brabed]

7th,

I'm confused here, the swing (weekly) TCD indicators are pointing long, yet I see we still have quite a bit of short to fill for the month and we're running out of time. Which is correct? Are we going to see a fill of the weekly long and then get a hard reversal towards the end of this week and early next? I'm trying to work out who the boss is between the time frames.

Brabed

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Hi 7th,

I somehow thought you wouldn't have done away with the core 4. Though it would have been amazing if you'd found a way to solely trade at high accuracy levels from magnitude concepts alone.

I've seen how useful Magnitude, Direction, Timing and Probabilty can really be and how they all interlink and logically progress from one to the next 😀

Around a month ago, you mentioned that we would benefit from researching further into other indicators:
I think we're all uncertain as to how to know when we're "ready" enough 😕

Research is progressing well and organisational/change control aspects of actual development are now being addressed so we'll have a solid plaform for on-going research and testing.

If you get a spare moment, drop in on the group to see how we're getting on - it would be nice to have a confirmation of whether we're still heading in the right direction or not.
I bet it does 😀 You must be very pleased with the Annual data as that will give you that extra edge to trading outlook signals as your other projects progress.

Cheers

Mike

Well, when you stop to think about it - everything is driven off of Magnitude in the form of Omega. Zero Omega = Zero opportunity to ever profit. There must be Omega in order have TCDs as TCDs cannot exist independent of Omega. So, Omega comes first in everything for the Day Trader. No Omega - No Trade.

Everything about this system on the Day Trade side is geared towards taking measurements of Omega at various angles and approaches. Slicing and dicing Omega into smaller bits and then measuring those bits to see if there is any correlation between the “larger” and the “smaller” with the larger being the Omega.

Nothing can exist outside of Omega Absolute (the numeric value of the old DAPD, similar in construct ATR). It is both physically and logically impossible – just can’t happen. TCDs are an extension of the Omega concept and provide a very basic means for projected the “next” Omega Absolute range.

The goal for any Day Trader is to locate the “next” High and Low before the rest of the market knows about it. That’s the ultimate Day Trade. But, just like Einstein said, “you cannot solve a problem at the level at which is was created”, I don’t think it is fully possible to understand the best entry point into a Day trade by merely following the “trend”. There must be some level at which the “trend” can be viewed that is below the level of the “trend” itself. That is what TCDs are all about. They take the trader inside the so-called “trend” and prove mathematically:

1)

Trends do not exist from the point of observation of the Day trader – mathematically impossible. And, the word/language used to describe a “trend” is overly simplistic and grossly misleading. It is a word that has been passed down from generation to generation and it was never fully understood, nor fully descriptive of localized price behavior (price action within the Day Trade time-frame). Mathematically, a “trend” cannot be identified until after the fact making its identification null and void for the purposes of Day Trading.

Trend simply means: Directional Price Continuation. Continuation cannot be mathematically verified until after the fact. So, logically no trade can ever be made “with the trend” as the trend itself cannot every exist absent its own history. The “trend” is ALWAYS an historical event and can NEVER be a real-time and/or Future event because it absolutely requires a past. A “trend” without a “past” is not a trend at all. It then becomes a Projection. So, when I see somebody talking about Day Trading “with the trend”, I typically chuckle and find it rather amusing because in order to do that, one would have to trade with an “historical” event that has not happened yet – LOL. By definition, that is called “Predictive Trading” and not “Trend Trading”.

Trend Trading is physically impossible to do. This is what Day Trading “trend traders” just don’t seem to understand. The Mathematics and Logic behind what makes a trend – a “trend” seems to escape them.

2)

There are “other” behavioral characteristics of price that exist below or inside the so-called “trend” that give much greater insight into where price is headed in the shorter term Day Trade realm. This is what I call the TCD. The TCD exists independent of the “trend” and both TCD’s always exist at the exact same time. (LOL!)

One will be Dominant while the other is Subordinate and both can be measured by using the dimension of Omega and their inherent dimensions of Strategic TCD-F% averages as well as other TCD extensions.

Now, those “other” TCD extensions beyond the baseline 30 indicators have to do with previously mentioned Alpha-4 Indicators. I also have Alpha-5 and Alpha-6 Indicators as well, but cannot discuss these publicly. I’ll have to think about discussing my Alpha studies publicly, but I don’t see that happening in the near future – I’ve had a change of mind lately on that score. They’ve become too valuable to give up at this time.

However, you can discover them on your own and I’ve given ample suggestions and hints at how to find them in the way that I’ve fully described how the primary TCD Long and TCD Short work.

 

[TheBramble]

Trends do not exist from the point of observation of the Day trader – mathematically impossible. And, the word/language used to describe a “trend” is overly simplistic and grossly misleading. It is a word that has been passed down from generation to generation and it was never fully understood, nor fully descriptive of localized price behavior (price action within the Day Trade time-frame). Mathematically, a “trend” cannot be identified until after the fact making its identification null and void for the purposes of Day Trading.

Trend simply means: Directional Price Continuation. Continuation cannot be mathematically verified until after the fact. So, logically no trade can ever be made “with the trend” as the trend itself cannot every exist absent its own history. The “trend” is ALWAYS an historical event and can NEVER be a real-time and/or Future event because it absolutely requires a past. A “trend” without a “past” is not a trend at all. It then becomes a Projection. So, when I see somebody talking about Day Trading “with the trend”, I typically chuckle and find it rather amusing because in order to do that, one would have to trade with an “historical” event that has not happened yet – LOL. By definition, that is called “Predictive Trading” and not “Trend Trading”.

Trend Trading is physically impossible to do. This is what Day Trading “trend traders” just don’t seem to understand. The Mathematics and Logic behind what makes a trend – a “trend” seems to escape them.

I don't often look in here because I have deep, dark suspicions you're really one of my many multi-nicks posting without my conscious awareness. But fate prompted me to look at this one and WOW! Just in time too.

Of course a trend exists while it exists and before it doesn't exist any more. You don't need to wait until after a trend existed to say "Look! That was a trend!!!". Your trend exists if it meets the criteria for trend-hood, whatever your timeframe may be. If the price is exhibiting tendencies of trend-ness for 10 days and you trade that trend, and it goes on in that same trend for another 10 days - you've traded the trend.

The problem with worrying about mathematical improbabilities and over dependence on increasingly obscure ways of avoiding the simple reality of the situation is a route that leads nowhere that is going to get you into the consistently successful category. It will however continue to fuel hypothetical debate on a mental scenario that has no basis or application in the real world of trading and as long as you (and others) recognise it for that - fine. Keeps hands away from mischief if you what I mean. 😱

So you can continue to chuckle at me successfully and profitably trading the trend - especially on breakouts from channels (do they not exist either?). Even if they are all nothing more than a projection of my own fevered and deluded mind, my trading statement seems to verify I am not alone in my delusions.

The problem with your system from my extremely limited knowledge of it, but much deeper knowledge of you personally, is that it has so far prevented you from allowing yourself to consider the possibility of taking a trade as a viable alternative to tweaking your system a little more to avoid it giving you those pesky signals. Each to their own.

 

[trendie]

....
Trend Trading is physically impossible to do.
.....

😱 😱 Guess I better give up right now.

Goodbye, cruel world. 😢

PS: better let Ed Seykota know your observations. 😆

 

[Charlton]

We have the means

😱 😱 Guess I better give up right now.

Goodbye, cruel world. 😢

PS: better let Ed Seykota know your observations. 😆

Hang in there trendie.

With the latest advances in trading science we are now able to rebuild your trend based on the latest nano-technology using a mix of Omega TCD and Alpha-4.

Unfortunately we cannot guarantee you that it will have the same directional price continuation as your original trend and you make experience the occasional regression, but eventually your EMA will make a full recovery

Charlton

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Hi 7th,

Thanks again for another wonderful post. This certainly helps me see the connection of the Trailing, Retention, and Projected TCD's much better, and being able to apply them properly.

There's still one thing that is still fuzzy, which is when a Retention TCD goes negative. This tend to throw things off for me since the Trailing and Projected TCD's are always positive. I would appreciated very much if you can please give some hints as to how you interpret negative Retention TCD's and some hints on dealing with them mathematically.

Thanks!

Looks like you at least have the Indicators hooked up right as Retention should be the only one that goes negative unless there is a large enough gap in the data between an open and a close to make Trailing or Projected go negative as well, but this should only happen in rare situations as this is not like a basic “gap” that we are all familiar with.

This is Metadata and as such it is not real market data. It is data “about” the market data. In a stream of electrical current flowing through a wire, you can (with the right equipment) measure several aspects of the electricity flowing through the wire. Much the same way, these are measurements taken of the two (2) Primary TCDs. Retention does just what it says: it measures the amount of Trailing (SAC Fill%) being “Retained” inside the Trailing TCD. So, when I look at a negative value in Retention, I basically see two things:

1) Above average strength in the underlying TCD that is “not” negative.

2) A high degree of either upward price compression or downward price compression that will result in either tying up the LocBindVar and not allowing it to “unlock” in the opposite direction – OR – such compression will result in Locking the LocBindVar which results in the price action “floating” in the direction of the previous move (trend continuation on a short-term basis).

Retention also helps in understanding what the Initial Move will be from session to session. Initial Moves can be as little as 7 pips or as high as 30 pips. Initial Moves are typically followed by Primary Moves that act in the opposite direction. Higher Retention values lead to better sustained Initial Moves of between 7 to 30 pips, according to my research.

But, be very careful on trading the IM’s. They have proven to be difficult to harness to the same level of accuracy as the PM’s. However, with the addition of the Annual/Yearly data, I am noticing that IM follow through on High Retention values to the Dominant TCD side, seem to work well. Just not well enough for me to create a trade signal that uses purely Retention metadata.

Experiment with Retention more and see what you come up with. For me, I treat it as a real-time indication of what is happening and not what “will happen” in the next trading session. It is simply another dimension of measurement of the broader Trajectory.

Hope that helps.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

7th,

I'm confused here, the swing (weekly) TCD indicators are pointing long, yet I see we still have quite a bit of short to fill for the month and we're running out of time. Which is correct? Are we going to see a fill of the weekly long and then get a hard reversal towards the end of this week and early next? I'm trying to work out who the boss is between the time frames.

Brabed

That's what I've been saying about the significance of the Annual TCD data. You see the Weekly and the Monthly. Have you also taken a look at the Annual? If you did, you would see that the Annual TCD Short had filled in December 31st, 2005, to more than 105%. You would also see that on the Annual level, the TCDs are more "stable" in their cycles. The Annual TCDs show the Long side needing to be recovered way back on January 1st, 2006.

Everything that has happened between then and today, has been right in-line with the Annual TCD Long filling the pipeline coming off a full Short side 2005 fill. Once the close line broke above the open line on the Annual side, the Annual Long TCD was underway.

The Annual sets the tone and can indeed override the Week and the Month and most certainly any Day TCD. That's what explains the vast majority of Daily LocBindVars that got "stuck" and refused to "unlock" - same for Week and Month.

Also remember the Omega Eclipse concept - the initial 30% of Omega that happens at the very start of ALL bars of data (Day, Week, Month and now Year). We were looking at a Quadrouple Eclipse in the making right before our eyes (Day, Week, Month and Year). Recall, tha the past I only spoke about the "Triple Eclipse" and that did not include the Annual Data.

Adding the Annual data and using January 1st, as the initiation of the Annual TCD Long - you get four (3) not three (3) Eclipses running simultaneously to the upside! Booom! Just like that you get a 900 pip Bull Run into the Stratosphere!

Very easy to see coming when you have the Annual TCD data. Not so easy to see when you don't. I did not have it in January, but my gut was telling me to expect a potential big move.

Go take a look at my post back on DailyFX when I replied to "Jac144" regarding his question to me when he asked me if I thought the EURUSD was done to the downside early this year. My response to him was Yes AND that the EURUSD would see levels ranges from 2500 up to a possible 3700 next. So, my gut was telling me to expect this move Long and I wrote about it a good while ago. But, the system did not have the Annual data at the time, so it was blind to the rather large scale Annual TCD Long that was building steam and had been waiting for the entire 4th quarter of 2005 to be released in early 2006.

As the designer of this system, I can have a gut felling about something but it won’t make sense to me unless I see the data that proves it first. Now, I have that data and the move from 1640 up to 2974 makes all the sense in the world! And, thank goodness it does - 🙂

TCDs are very powerful things. Catch a big one on the wrong side and it can really do some damage.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

I don't often look in here because I have deep, dark suspicions you're really one of my many multi-nicks posting without my conscious awareness. But fate prompted me to look at this one and WOW! Just in time too.

And, I have an equally dark suspicion that you really don’t know what you are talking about – but what else is new. Any Moderator could have told you eons ago that there is only “nick” on this board sharing this information with all others contributing their questions, thoughts and commentary. So, posting your “deep dark” suspicious only reveals your ulterior motives as being less than on the level.

Of course a trend exists while it exists and before it doesn't exist any more.

Therefore, it is impossible to trade a "trend". It is not only logically impossible, but physically impossible as well. In fact, mathematically speaking it does not even rank as a Probability because it has not physical existence whatsoever. One cannot trade what does not exist – period. No amount of wondering around the deep end of a very shallow pool of interpretation is going to bring into existence that which cannot possibly exist. LOL!

You don't need to wait until after a trend existed to say "Look! That was a trend!!!".

If you don't wait until the trend becomes a "trend", then you don’t even know what you are trading, if you call yourself a “trend trader”. In a sequence of numerical values ranging from 1 through 100 and repeating at intervals of 24 hours, you can instantly know that if you are on number 37 in the range count that exactly 63 “future” points of data exist. If those 63 points of data don’t ALREADY EXIST then you have NO trend – rather – a Probability. A basic (junior) lesson on Statistics and Probabilities would clear this up for you.

Trends, by their very definition are Projections. That by definition means they DO NOT already exist in space and/or time. They are not physical manifestations of anything that has already occurred. And, if it has not already occurred - it cannot possibly be a component of a “trend”. The cart does not come before the horse and it never has.

Your trend exists if it meets the criteria for trend-hood, whatever your timeframe may be.

LOL! Now, that was funny!

"Trendhood"? Please define "trendhood"? What is the "trend" of the EURUSD right now AND how did you go about defining it? Be very careful with the answer you give because it is a definite logic trap. Any answer you give will torch your own argument that trends exist. Your own statements argues against your position and you don’t even know it – LOL!

1) Tell us what the "current" trend is for the EURUSD right now?
2) Tell us how you determined what that trend was?
3) Be prepared to have your argument exposed as being illogical at the core.

If the price is exhibiting tendencies of trend-ness for 10 days and you trade that trend, and it goes on in that same trend for another 10 days - you've traded the trend.

Define "trendness"? I don't care whether it is 10 days or 10 years - define "trendness"? Your very definition will expose the fact that trends CANNOT exist in reality.

The problem with worrying about mathematical improbabilities and over dependence on increasingly obscure ways of avoiding the simple reality of the situation is a route that leads nowhere that is going to get you into the consistently successful category. It will however continue to fuel hypothetical debate on a mental scenario that has no basis or application in the real world of trading and as long as you (and others) recognise it for that - fine. Keeps hands away from mischief if you what I mean. 😱

The problem with conventional wisdom is that it will always (100% of the time) get trumped by a new and better idea. Until you understand what a Trajectory is and is not, you will never be able to see it, understand it or fully appreciate why it trumps “trend think”. My personal trading results speak for themselves and have been for years in this business. I personally, don’t have to make another trade another day in my life and could live any lifestyle I so selected. I don’t trade because I need money – I trade because my Projects need funding well beyond the norm. TCDs allow me the comfort of having direct experience with consistent trading – not trends.

So you can continue to chuckle at me successfully and profitably trading the trend - especially on breakouts from channels (do they not exist either?). Even if they are all nothing more than a projection of my own fevered and deluded mind, my trading statement seems to verify I am not alone in my delusions.

No - to the contrary. I chuckle at people trying to debunk things they know nothing about - that's what I find so funny. 🙂 And, at the same time suffering under the delusion that something that CANNOT possibly exist in the known universe is the basis for their success as a trader.

Trend traders (many of them - not all of them) don't even understand the language they are using. They are using language handed to them without understanding the mathematical, logical or physical constraints built into the language itself! That's what I find so funny. The only thing you can possible do is trade a Probability! Deluding one’s self into thinking that they are doing anything more or less than that, is what I find so amusing – LOL! Saying that one is trading something that in fact has not happened yet, is what I find amusing.

Projections and Predictions are all we have as traders and nothing more. Unless you can Regress time itself – which means engage in some sort of Time Travel to a point along the path of price itself, enter a trade from WITHIN the trend and then emerge at some point down-line in the “future” (which would not actually be the future anymore), then you are deluding yourself.

You did not know it before you made this post, but everything you are saying has to do with the Laws of Physics as we know them. In order for you to be able to trade that which does not exist, you would need to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and specially the Laws of Entropy as it is prescribed for Energy and Mass. These are long standing rules of our physical universe that have NEVER been broken as far as we know.

LOL! Do you really want to have this conversation? This is all about Physics and NOT about Trading. You are not arguing with me. You just happen to be arguing with the laws that govern our planet, solar system, galaxy and every known and unknown star in the known and unknown universe. But, of course – you had to know that before making this post.

This is a Physics question. Not a question of Trading “trends”. What’s more funny – it always has been!

All I’ve done was simply apply the laws of physics to my thinking about trading. When I did that, it became crystal clear that I needed to find a better way to describe what I was actually doing in the markets every 24 hours. Trend language is simply too inadequate for my style of trading. It does not even begin to come close to describing Price Behavior at the micro-level.

TCDs are like the DNA of Price Behavior. It represents an entirely new realm of understanding and describing Price action on a level that “trends” simply are unaware of. Until you can see the TCD, you will always think that “trends” exist. Which in and of itself, is not logical.

In fact, believing in “trends” requires an even greater imagination than what I do – LOL! How funny - yet how amazingly true. 😉 But, hey – since it works for you – more power to you.

Lastly, you don't know me (that's a joke). You don't know my "personality" (that's an even bigger joke) and most importantly you are correct - you do have a limited knowledge of this system and its most basic principles. The thing I find most revealing are those that would pretend to know me, this system or why “trends” exist.

Take the best Prosecuting Attorney on planet earth and give him/her the assignment of proving to a Judge and a Jury that “trends exist” in the way that most conventionalist traders say they do, and I’ll beat that Attorney every single time by asking him/her one single question:

How did you MEASURE the trend?

What the Prosecutor opens his/her mouth to give an answer; they will have already lost the case. Because in order to “describe” a “trend”, he/she would FIRST need to prove that it exists. And, that is physically, mathematically, and logically impossible to do simply because a “trend” is a “metaphor” used to describe a “past event”, or “serious of past events”. Thus, it is non-logical to describe in real-time something having a physical existence BEFORE it exists. LOL!

So, are we to consider "Trendhood" - or - Physics? You decide! LOL!

 

[7thSignalTrader]

😱 😱 Guess I better give up right now.

Goodbye, cruel world. 😢

PS: better let Ed Seykota know your observations. 😆

Ask Ed to "define" a trend for you. And, then ask him to define its existence for use in trading your currency pair right now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year - but right now!

You see the problem with trend think is not the trend itself – because that does not exist. The problem with trend think is that it is blind to what constitutes a trend. So, it is blind to its own source, origin and/or genesis. It cannot see its birth place – LOL!

Now, a TCD on the other hand – that’s a horse of another color. TCDs have definite points of initiation and termination. Those points are not fixed in space/time, yet they are local to any Historical Trend Event. TCDs are refined definitions of “trends” and they provide the structure within which the “next” historical “trend” will emerge.

Ask Ed to explain that for you. 😉 He'll need a background in Physics to accomodate you. A "Local Event" is just that "local". Meaning it must have ALREADY happened.

This is physics 101, guys. Not rocket science.

 

[hoangmphung]

Hi 7th,

Thanks for the valuable lessons. Each of your posts contains so much information and "homework" for us 🙂

Right now, we are having some heated discussion on the subject of dominant and subordinate TCDs. You said that it is best to wait for the subordinate TCD to fill before entering on the opposite direction. I infer from this that the information of which TCD is subordinate is known beforehand. But I also recall you mentioned that during the day, the two TCDs fight continuously for dominance. How should I understand it? By "dominant TCD", do you mean the ongoing "trend" or the primary move that will take place during the day ahead? Thanks.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Hi 7th,

Thanks for the valuable lessons. Each of your posts contains so much information and "homework" for us 🙂

Right now, we are having some heated discussion on the subject of dominant and subordinate TCDs. You said that it is best to wait for the subordinate TCD to fill before entering on the opposite direction. I infer from this that the information of which TCD is subordinate is known beforehand. But I also recall you mentioned that during the day, the two TCDs fight continuously for dominance. How should I understand it? By "dominant TCD", do you mean the ongoing "trend" or the primary move that will take place during the day ahead? Thanks.

Yes – good point and observation. I should clarify that distinction.

Make no mistake about. Indeed, you should always be clear on where the Dominant TCD resides. Take a look at the baseline TCD performance data in my last “Update”. I covered the Daily, Weekly, Monthly and now the Annual TCD performance data at the baselines. I do have many other TCD performance factors that I’ve spoken about and that are not necessary for the purposes of this thread (very proprietary and closely held stuff – not for public dissemination). However, the baseline performance data is simply obtained by taking the real-time (today’s, this week’s, this month’s and this year’s) TCD performance and comparing that to the average TCD performance over the number of periods being tracked.

So, if you are tracking 21 rows of data for each TCD, then your real-time tracking performance data (shown in my last two Updates on the Outlook Trade) will run against the average of those numbers of rows. You could have used 32 rows of data, or 41 rows of data, or 15 rows of data. Whatever the averaging period for the number of bars that you track in each time-frame (Daily, Weekly, Monthly and now Yearly), that sets the performance time-frame for each TCD.

The “Fill%” is a “Performance” Indicator telling you what that particular TCD is doing right now against the “History” of that particular TCD. This is the baseline starting point for doing probability calculations. So, the Dominant TCD is of course the one containing the biggest magnitude in absolute value over the entire averaging period.

The Dominant TCD is not – I repeat not the one with the largest Fill%. Rather, it is the one with the largest Magnitude in terms of absolute pip value from point-to-point. Combine all four (4) baseline (four now because of the new Yearly inputs) TCDs and their Magnitudes and you have the Dominant TCD. Not coincidently, this should also come up as the Yearly TCD showing the biggest Projection TCD values.

Right now on the EURUSD the Trailing Long Fill% is 75.06%, the Trailing Short Fill% is 104.88%, the Retention Long Fill% is 68.91%, the Retention Short Fill% is 43.02%, the Projection Long Fill% is 59.29% and the Projection Short Fill% is 6.42%.

The Projection Long Fill% of 59.29% will contain all of the Long side price action in the lower bars until the Yearly Trailing Long TCD reaches its target Fill% which for now is 100%. I’m still working on the Annual data, so the target Fill for the Trailing TCD might move a bit after I get the data fully instantiated into the system. But, right now I’m using a baseline target of 100% - anything beyond that is pure gravy this year.

Dominant TCD on the EURUSD has been Long since January 1st, 2006, when it snapped straight up like a rocket from the 1800 level back near the very first trading day of the Year. The previous Dominant was Short and initiated very near January 1st, 2005, as it was coming off yet another Long side Dominant TCD Long back in 2004. The Annual TCDs roll nicely, but even they can extend for two years or so. So, that’s why I use the Projection TCD Fill% for the Annual to determine where I get most of my input to determine which TCD is Dominant for the Day trades. At least, now I sure do! LOL! Make life a lot easier and it also explains many things I wondered about regarding those smaller time-frame LocBindVars that simply would not unlock. Now, I know why!

Hope this helps. 🙂

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Hi 7th,

Thanks for the valuable lessons. Each of your posts contains so much information and "homework" for us 🙂

Right now, we are having some heated discussion on the subject of dominant and subordinate TCDs. You said that it is best to wait for the subordinate TCD to fill before entering on the opposite direction. I infer from this that the information of which TCD is subordinate is known beforehand. But I also recall you mentioned that during the day, the two TCDs fight continuously for dominance. How should I understand it? By "dominant TCD", do you mean the ongoing "trend" or the primary move that will take place during the day ahead? Thanks.

In follow-up I'll add this to my previous reply to your question:

TCDs make up "trends". The form the structure in which price moves. Price cannot move without TCDs and TCDs cannot exist without Omega. Deltas between Highs and Lows drive everything in trading - period. There is absolutely NOTHING in trading more important than the delta between the High and the Low - nothing. Remove that basic/fundamental price action and you remove the entire engine that drives every single trade. There must be some kind of separation between the High and the Low of each bar - regardless of the bar being observed.

Basic TCDs track movement between Highs and Lows across contiguous bars of data (more advanced TCD track movement between non-contiguous bars of data). The only thing that exists in REAL-TIME (important to Day Traders) are TCDs – whether they are aware of it or not.

How many people get onboard a 747-500 and can tell you exactly what elements of Laminar Airflow cause the wings to produce lift and carry them to their destination? Or, which segment of the wing is producing the most lift during the climb phase, cruise phase or descent and landing phases of flight? Or, where the Dominant lifting surface is located on the wing itself? Not many people can articulate that for you, yet those same people have no problem getting on board that same 747-500 and intrusting their very lives to its very basic aerodynamic functions and capabilities.

Likewise, how many traders can tell you the mathematical construct of a “trend”? The magnitude of that “trend”. The directional distribution of that “trend”? The inertial moment of that “trend”? The transitory nature of that “trend”? The transformation within the “trend” itself? The phase of the “trend”? Again, not many traders can articulate that for you, yet those very same traders will swear up and down that “trends” exist even though they cannot articulate the very baseline mathematical components that constitute what they stake their hard earned money on.

TCDs are what provide the lifting force for the wings of trends. Omega is the air. TCD Long and TCD Short are the wings – one on the right and one on the left. The “trend” would be like the aircraft itself. Only I don’t call them trends. I call it Price Structure – because it has “structure” and because Price moves between that structure along the path of the Dominant and Subordinate TCD.

Both TCDs are constantly vying for position to establish the Primary Move for the day, but the Dominant TCD may not be the one matching the Primary Move for a particular session. The Primary Move often runs in opposition to the Dominant TCD. When that happens, most of the time, you can prepare another Deposit Slip for your bank account because several pips will typically be forthcoming in the not so distant future back to the Dominant TCD side.

So, this is why you need to aggregate ALL of the absolute value TCD variables from each time-frame (day, week, month and now year) in order to see the Dominant TCD. Wait for a decent fill against that indicator and then re-enter on the side of the Dominant TCD. Take a look at the past 12-14 days on the EURUSD. The price action turned horizontal back then, yet the Dominant TCD remained Long. However, over the past 8 days, the “trend” has turned Short to Horizontal and yet the Dominant TCD has remained Long.

A Short “trend” with a Long Dominant TCD.

That is the current condition of the price behavior on the EURUSD right now using TCD speak. Trend Traders still see the Long “trend” and that is all they can see. They cannot see the rotation in the Strategic TCDs to the Short side in the Daily bar. They see these moves on the Daily bar to the downside as ”Dips”. These are not “dips”. Dips are like “trends”. It is a weak metaphor used to describe something more complex. A dip says nothing about magnitude, timing or probability. So, when somebody indicates that they are waiting to “buy back” the EURUSD on a “dip”, simply ask them:

1) How do they measure that dip?
2) How big will the dip be?
3) When will they know the dip is over?
4) How will they know that there won’t be several dips before the move higher?
5) How do they know when the dip will initiate?
6) Where will the dip initiate?
7) What will be the indication that the dip is imminent?

Ask these same questions about those waiting to ”Sell Rallies” and see what answers you get. It will be an eye opening experience, I assure you. Every time I ask a Trend Trader these questions, they freeze up and cough-up blood because they don’t have clean answers. That means they are guessing about dips, rallies and most importantly what constitutes these rather simple to understand price behavioral patterns.

Take a close look at the EURUSD right now. The Dominant Long Filled to 115.20% last session and the Subordinate Short Filled to 106.88% last session. The current Subordinate Short Fill is now 47.96%. The basic/easy way to trade this is to wait for a Subordinate Short TCD fill that fits within the previous sessions Subordinate Fill of 106.88%. In that range, should be the optimal Long entry point given where the current Dominant TCD is now pointing.

Two things that you can look for to help you determine the transitory nature of the Dominant –vs- Subordinate TCD.

a) The Subordinate TCD Fills should be somewhat “contained” within the same range as its “previous sessions” TCD Fill. So, if the previous Subordinate TCD Fill was 106.88%, your next good entry point should be somewhere “near” that fill%. If you start to see Subordinate TCD Fills getting larger and larger with each trading session and the Dominant TCD Fills getting smaller and smaller with each subsequent session, then you know that the internal characteristics of the Price Structure (what others call the “trend”) is changing right before your eyes.

b) The Dominant TCD Fills should remain consistent with periodic Fills above the Previous Fill indicating that the Dominance remains in place. If you start to see continual Dominant Fills day after day that don’t keep the pace of filling at or above the Previous Dominant TCD, then that is a sign that the Dominance is leaving the station and headed for the “other” TCD.

Two very good things to watch out for!

Remember that this system is geared for Day Trading. It was built to signal me when trading the Dominant TCD is acceptable AND when trading the Subordinate TCD warranted. When there is enough of what I call “flex” in the Dominant TCD (or, known mathematically as Reflexive) then I allow the system to call the Day Trade to the Subordinate side. If there is not enough Reflexive in the Dominant data, I suppress the signal coming out of the engine and disallow that particular trade. Instead, the Dominant trade is called and the system is told to display the trade profile that matches that scenario.

So, the system is doing a continual/perpetual balancing act, measuring the weight of each TCD (Dominant and Subordinate) and determining which signal Long or Short should come to screen. In this system, there is always a Long AND Short signal that could come to screen. The logic coded in the system determines which one is allowed to display its profile.

There’s never only one signal generated in this system for Day trades. There are always two signals competing for the coveted spot on the Dashboard each session. The trick is finding the right balance in the code that allows the correct signal to be displayed each day. TCDs give me the freedom of having two signals each day. Without TCDs, I’d only have one signal – one choice and one way to make money.

Hope that helps.

 

[TheBramble]

And, I have an equally dark suspicion that you really don’t know what you are talking about – but what else is new. Any Moderator could have told you eons ago that there is only “nick” on this board sharing this information with all others contributing their questions, thoughts and commentary. So, posting your “deep dark” suspicious only reveals your ulterior motives as being less than on the level.




Therefore, it is impossible to trade a "trend". It is not only logically impossible, but physically impossible as well. In fact, mathematically speaking it does not even rank as a Probability because it has not physical existence whatsoever. One cannot trade what does not exist – period. No amount of wondering around the deep end of a very shallow pool of interpretation is going to bring into existence that which cannot possibly exist. LOL!




If you don't wait until the trend becomes a "trend", then you don’t even know what you are trading, if you call yourself a “trend trader”. In a sequence of numerical values ranging from 1 through 100 and repeating at intervals of 24 hours, you can instantly know that if you are on number 37 in the range count that exactly 63 “future” points of data exist. If those 63 points of data don’t ALREADY EXIST then you have NO trend – rather – a Probability. A basic (junior) lesson on Statistics and Probabilities would clear this up for you.

Trends, by their very definition are Projections. That by definition means they DO NOT already exist in space and/or time. They are not physical manifestations of anything that has already occurred. And, if it has not already occurred - it cannot possibly be a component of a “trend”. The cart does not come before the horse and it never has.




LOL! Now, that was funny!

"Trendhood"? Please define "trendhood"? What is the "trend" of the EURUSD right now AND how did you go about defining it? Be very careful with the answer you give because it is a definite logic trap. Any answer you give will torch your own argument that trends exist. Your own statements argues against your position and you don’t even know it – LOL!

1) Tell us what the "current" trend is for the EURUSD right now?
2) Tell us how you determined what that trend was?
3) Be prepared to have your argument exposed as being illogical at the core.




Define "trendness"? I don't care whether it is 10 days or 10 years - define "trendness"? Your very definition will expose the fact that trends CANNOT exist in reality.




The problem with conventional wisdom is that it will always (100% of the time) get trumped by a new and better idea. Until you understand what a Trajectory is and is not, you will never be able to see it, understand it or fully appreciate why it trumps “trend think”. My personal trading results speak for themselves and have been for years in this business. I personally, don’t have to make another trade another day in my life and could live any lifestyle I so selected. I don’t trade because I need money – I trade because my Projects need funding well beyond the norm. TCDs allow me the comfort of having direct experience with consistent trading – not trends.



No - to the contrary. I chuckle at people trying to debunk things they know nothing about - that's what I find so funny. 🙂 And, at the same time suffering under the delusion that something that CANNOT possibly exist in the known universe is the basis for their success as a trader.

Trend traders (many of them - not all of them) don't even understand the language they are using. They are using language handed to them without understanding the mathematical, logical or physical constraints built into the language itself! That's what I find so funny. The only thing you can possible do is trade a Probability! Deluding one’s self into thinking that they are doing anything more or less than that, is what I find so amusing – LOL! Saying that one is trading something that in fact has not happened yet, is what I find amusing.

Projections and Predictions are all we have as traders and nothing more. Unless you can Regress time itself – which means engage in some sort of Time Travel to a point along the path of price itself, enter a trade from WITHIN the trend and then emerge at some point down-line in the “future” (which would not actually be the future anymore), then you are deluding yourself.

You did not know it before you made this post, but everything you are saying has to do with the Laws of Physics as we know them. In order for you to be able to trade that which does not exist, you would need to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics and specially the Laws of Entropy as it is prescribed for Energy and Mass. These are long standing rules of our physical universe that have NEVER been broken as far as we know.

LOL! Do you really want to have this conversation? This is all about Physics and NOT about Trading. You are not arguing with me. You just happen to be arguing with the laws that govern our planet, solar system, galaxy and every known and unknown star in the known and unknown universe. But, of course – you had to know that before making this post.

This is a Physics question. Not a question of Trading “trends”. What’s more funny – it always has been!

All I’ve done was simply apply the laws of physics to my thinking about trading. When I did that, it became crystal clear that I needed to find a better way to describe what I was actually doing in the markets every 24 hours. Trend language is simply too inadequate for my style of trading. It does not even begin to come close to describing Price Behavior at the micro-level.

TCDs are like the DNA of Price Behavior. It represents an entirely new realm of understanding and describing Price action on a level that “trends” simply are unaware of. Until you can see the TCD, you will always think that “trends” exist. Which in and of itself, is not logical.

In fact, believing in “trends” requires an even greater imagination than what I do – LOL! How funny - yet how amazingly true. 😉 But, hey – since it works for you – more power to you.

Lastly, you don't know me (that's a joke). You don't know my "personality" (that's an even bigger joke) and most importantly you are correct - you do have a limited knowledge of this system and its most basic principles. The thing I find most revealing are those that would pretend to know me, this system or why “trends” exist.

Take the best Prosecuting Attorney on planet earth and give him/her the assignment of proving to a Judge and a Jury that “trends exist” in the way that most conventionalist traders say they do, and I’ll beat that Attorney every single time by asking him/her one single question:

How did you MEASURE the trend?

What the Prosecutor opens his/her mouth to give an answer; they will have already lost the case. Because in order to “describe” a “trend”, he/she would FIRST need to prove that it exists. And, that is physically, mathematically, and logically impossible to do simply because a “trend” is a “metaphor” used to describe a “past event”, or “serious of past events”. Thus, it is non-logical to describe in real-time something having a physical existence BEFORE it exists. LOL!

So, are we to consider "Trendhood" - or - Physics? You decide! LOL!

OK. Your entire premise rests on your assertion that trends do not exist.

Let me show you a trend, define it for you, and your hypothesis is proven untrue. OK?

I'll take an instrument I don't trade so as to show you how easy it is to do. GOOG.

GOOG is in a down trend on the daily. Since April 21st 2006 from a high of 450.72 that day, it has made successively lower lows and lower highs. A small correction for the first week and a half of this month, but still on a down trend. It may be bottoming or reversing, but a trend has the distinct property of being more likely (higher probability) of continuing than not. The very act of continuance hints at existence. You can't continue something that doesn't exist.

Within the context of the daily down trend we have the 5 min chart showing range bound activity in the 366-372 area. So, not trending, but ranging.

If you look at the 1min chart from 19:00 to 20:30 (BST) yesterday, you'll see an up trend. Higher high and higher lows with a minor correction at about 19:30.

If you don't want to use mathematical analyses to recognise these trends (I don't) you can train your eye to recognise them quite easily. Just takes practise.

It's an attractive proposition to imagine you can bend any (all?) of the physical sciences to support claims in non-physical universes, but that is a throwback to Newtonian physics and a Newtonian universe. While it certainly exists, it isn't applicable in as many aspects of the real Universe in which we live as you might imagine. While the Victorian's would have used this sort of argument, recent (last 50 years) advances in physics and the nature of structure have lead us away from that. It's still OK at kindergarten level and it has its uses, but they are limited.

The laws of thermodynamics have no direct relationship with anything that happens or does not happen in the markets.

hth

 

[zuke]

OK. Your entire premise rests on your assertion that trends do not exist.

Let me show you a trend, define it for you, and your hypothesis is proven untrue. OK?

I'll take an instrument I don't trade so as to show you how easy it is to do. GOOG.

GOOG is in a down trend on the daily. Since April 21st 2006 from a high of 450.72 that day, it has made successively lower lows and lower highs. A small correction for the first week and a half of this month, but still on a down trend. It may be bottoming or reversing, but a trend has the distinct property of being more likely (higher probability) of continuing than not. The very act of continuance hints at existence. You can't continue something that doesn't exist.

Within the context of the daily down trend we have the 5 min chart showing range bound activity in the 366-372 area. So, not trending, but ranging.

If you look at the 1min chart from 19:00 to 20:30 (BST) yesterday, you'll see an up trend. Higher high and higher lows with a minor correction at about 19:30.

If you don't want to use mathematical analyses to recognise these trends (I don't) you can train your eye to recognise them quite easily. Just takes practise.

It's an attractive proposition to imagine you can bend any (all?) of the physical sciences to support claims in non-physical universes, but that is a throwback to Newtonian physics and a Newtonian universe. While it certainly exists, it isn't applicable in as many aspects of the real Universe in which we live as you might imagine. While the Victorian's would have used this sort of argument, recent (last 50 years) advances in physics and the nature of structure have lead us away from that. It's still OK at kindergarten level and it has its uses, but they are limited.

The laws of thermodynamics have no direct relationship with anything that happens or does not happen in the markets.

hth

Great Post Bramble, but you should have realised by now that 7th and his band of "disciples" actually dont trade the markets. Theirs is one of proving that they are clever and the rest of us are stupid. Despite a now 500+ pip drawdown, 7th is still trying to tell us that he's a multi-millionaire..who doesnt have to trade..blah! blah!

In short, he's an insecure and deluded shiller who is well known as a shyster on the other main FX boards. Save your time and energy and focus on more profitable activities than this jackass, who predicted that on 1st May..there would be a huge collapse in EUR/USD and was laughing and mocking at those of us who were trend following (Long) from the low 20's. -500 pips later..he decided to use the old favourite "I wasnt trading it anyway" and pretend it was all part of his master plan. Sad...but true.

 

[TheBramble]

BAT?

 

[wasp]

BAT?

Where?

Duck!

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Page One:

OK. Your entire premise rests on your assertion that trends do not exist.

Only for the question of “trends” and their existence for the Day Trader, yes – correct.

Let me show you a trend, define it for you, and your hypothesis is proven untrue. OK?

Ok, this should prove very eye opening!

GOOG is in a down trend on the daily. Since April 21st 2006 from a high of 450.72 that day, it has made successively lower lows and lower highs. A small correction for the first week and a half of this month, but still on a down trend. It may be bottoming or reversing, but a trend has the distinct property of being more likely (higher probability) of continuing than not. The very act of continuance hints at existence. You can't continue something that doesn't exist.

This really misses the point entirely. This entire paragraph is trumped by one solitary fact:

A “trend” by definition is a past event. Therefore, you can only look back at “history” and claim that a trend existed in the past. But, you can never look forward and prove that the “trend” still exists from the point at which the Trader needs to execute the trade.

Later, I'll give an example using thermodynamics (conservation and entropy below). Here, I'll use the Causality Principle to prove that from the Day Traders perspective, "trends" cannot exist. I am not one of those degreed Physicists who are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water and stake the claim that the Causality Principle is moot. I am degreed in Mathematics, Physics and Aerodynamics, and have used all three disciplines in both corporate and now in a private project setting. This trading system is but one of many different types of technical systems that I have either designed outright from the ground up, or worked on a team of engineers, scientists and creative people to bring about in a corporate setting with world wide deployment.

I tend to take the macroscopic causality point of view as the financial markets are not “non-chaotic”. I tend to believe that there is much structure within the chaos of all financial markets. However, even in those financial markets (enclosed systems) that are highly manipulated, I believe the classic view of distinction conservation is always valid in all systems governed by thermodynamics. You really need to understand what thermodynamics means in order to see its relevance to trading and financial markets – I’m not going to spend time here outlining an education on that subject, but I will touch upon it later to show its clear relevance to trading. For now, let’s examine the Causality Principle as it relates to “trends”.

Even Bertrand Russell, in his third postulate of “Spatio-Temporal Continuity”, where he basically denies “action at a distance”, comes around to eventially admit that there must be a causal connection between two or more non-contiguous events. He goes on to say, in his 1948 paper as I recall, that basically each event would need to necessarily be linked together through a sort of “causal chain” such that the a “process” of “causality” dispite the non-contiguous relationship between all major events in the chain. A “trend” is chain of cause and effect with periodic “major” events where “price” is moved from one location on a vertical scale to another – either higher or lower. So, even in using a so-called “weak” reference for the existence of cause and effect like a Philosopher and not a well known Physicists, is proof that cause and effect as a principle has merrit for these purposes.

Now, having said that, it becomes clear then that for every “trend” there must have first been a “cause”, or Russell would have said, a “causal chain”, as that more accurately depicts what happens when price moves consistently with its historical price pattern. The Causality Principle simply provides for the orderly process/ing of a physical and logical universe. It simply states that the behavior of a “system” at any point in time must depend on either physical systems, points and/or events at some location PRIOR TO (Historical context) the currently observed behavior of the system, or similarly, a First Order Equation of Motion would be needed to allow a system moving through time (t) to yeield any valid information about said system at the present – or time (p).

In other words, if you are going to extract information from the trend that is useful, then the trend must already exist – by defintion. No amount of side-stepping Physics is going to change this fact. This is NOT a non-causal mathematical proposition as information about the historical “trend” is NOT needed in order to understand that it does in deed have a history. This fact is most definitely not up for debate or alteration. If you attempt to alter this concept of Cause and Effect, you run head first into all kinds of trouble with the very foundations of the physical laws the govern our entire universe, including the financially traded markets.

For the Historian, the Empirical Scientist, the Analyst, the Researcher, the Student, the Engineer, etc., only the historical evidence of trends can be proven as fact. One can only say that GOOG “has trended to this point”. One cannot say that GOOG “is IN a trend”. That would be in error because a trend absolutely REQUIRES a Local/Historical Event. That means, that it owes its entire existence to history. No physical component of a historical trend can EVER extend beyond the present and most certainly cannot into the future. Trends can only exist in an historical context for the purposes of trading.

I noticed you began your analysis of Google and never included the date of 4/20/06 when the close price was $415.00. Is there a particular reason why you omitted this date! Would it be that Google was NOT Short then? LOL! So, tell me – prior to 4/20/06, what was the price behavior of Google, then? Looks to me that the historical trend on Google at that point was Long, not Short. So, if you were a “trend trader” and you “trade trends” (which is impossible) then you would have been Long Google DIRECTLY on the very date that you use as the start of the “down trend”. I find that both ironic and very counter distinctive. You can’t have it both ways.

Either Google was in a Long Trend (according to your logic) on 4/20 and 4/21, where a trend trader would have been holding Long through the big 4/21/06 break-down, or you don’t truly believe in “trends” being real for the trader about to make a real-time trade decision. Which is it? If you truly believe in trends, then there is no way that you would have even been able to see this downward “trend” between 4/21/06 to now, because the historical “trend” was UP before that for an equal amount of time.

Thus, when somebody tells you that they are ”trading the trend”. What they are truly saying is that they are ”trading a trend PROJECTION”. Not the “trend” itself. The trader cannot trade the PAST. He/She can ONLY trade the Future. The Trader does not even have the luxury of trading the PRESENT. Only the FUTURE is available to the Trader. Since trends have zero physical extension beyond the PRESENT, no Trader can ever “trade THE trend”. Only a PROJECTION of that trend can be traded and THAT is known as a Probability and you need to know how to create density probabilities in order to know how to use them in trading.

A probability is not a guess. A probability cannot be derived from simply looking at a chart and hallucinating about trading a trend. Probabilities have to be derived from “historical” empirical data – not visually. Probabilities are mathematical constructs. Probabilities are not “Odds”. Many people confuse “Odds” with Probabilities – they are NOT the same and never have been. We are ALL Probability Traders whether we know it or not, except it or not, or even understand it or not. LOL! The ONLY thing that exists for the Trader is a Future Projection based on a probability that he/she has either calculated or not calculated. Whether you calculate the probability or not, is totally moot – it exists independent of the traders execution in any specific trade. Much the same way that thermodynamics relates to trading whether you know it or know, understand it or not, or can appreciate its impact or not.

That future projection of price can be comprised of many different things and among those include Historical Trend Data. But, when it comes down to executing a live trade, the Trader can NEVER trade “THE” trend. Because “THE” trend is a past Local/Historical Event – it does not exist from the Traders frame of reference.

By defintion, if you were able to "trade the trend", then you would likewise be trading history at the exact same time and that is a physical impossibility. Thus, by logical extension, if you were able to "trade the trend", then you would NEVER EVER make a bad trade because you would already know the historical trending price behavior.

Why?

Because trends ARE historical events - not present or future events. Those are called Projections and Probabilities.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Page Two:

It's an attractive proposition to imagine you can bend any (all?) of the physical sciences to support claims in non-physical universes, but that is a throwback to Newtonian physics and a Newtonian universe. While it certainly exists, it isn't applicable in as many aspects of the real Universe in which we live as you might imagine. While the Victorian's would have used this sort of argument, recent (last 50 years) advances in physics and the nature of structure have lead us away from that. It's still OK at kindergarten level and it has its uses, but they are limited. The laws of thermodynamics have no direct relationship with anything that happens or does not happen in the markets.

That’s easy, just prove it!

It is easy to say that one thing has no relationship to another thing – but it is far more difficult to prove it. The vastness of the level of misunderstanding in this paragraph is truly revealing. This response lacks depth because it does not talk about the factors of thermodynamics that don’t have any relationship to the markets, as you claim.

In stark contrast to merely claiming that thermodynamics relates to the markets and thus every trade I make, here are some real factors related to the two that prove the correlation.

The laws of physics apply absolutely to the physical universe in which we live and in which financial markets exist. ALL physical instantiations in our universe are under the rule of law (the rules of physics) as we know them. Financial Markets, hopeless theories and wishful thinking do not extract themselves from the physical laws of the universe that govern ALL aspects of life as we know it.

You say, thermodynamics has no direct relationship with anything that happens or does not happen in the markets? That’s funny!

Alter even slightly the boundaries and constraints of thermodynamics and our entire universe could physically unravel into total chaos! And, you think that has nothing to do with the real physical connections between the financial markets AND the constituent components that make it a “financial market”? What do you think “Market Volatility” means? Where do you think market volatility comes from? What do you think moves a financial instrument's “price”?

It is called Energy.

Energy exists in many different forms. Work requires energy and movement by definition requires work.. Prices cannot move until “work” is done. The very first law of thermodynamics is that of conservation – and it states that ALL energy in the universe is conserved and that NO energy can be created OR destroyed – that ALL energy in the universe can only be converted from one form to another. The financial market (Forex, Stocks, Bonds, etc.) is an enclosed system. If it is an “enclosed system” AND it exists in the known universe, then it, like ALL other systems are bound by the laws of the physical universe in which it exists.

A “Bull Market”, therefore, has “energy” – call it Long Energy. That energy is specifically for the purpose of moving prices higher. A “Bear Market”, therefore, also has “energy” – call it Short Energy. That energy is specifically for the purpose of moving prices lower. In the second law of thermodynamics, the law of Entropy, ALL energy “exchanges” where no energy enters or leaves the “system/financial market” the potential energy will ALWAYS be smaller than initial energy. LOL!

Market “Volatility” is derived from market ”Volume”. Volatility is the evidence that “work” which requires “energy” is being done on “price”. Potential Energy, therefore, takes on the form of Volume and Price takes on the form of Kinetic Energy. In the system, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and the resultant evidence of that fact is that prices do indeed MOVE in real-time.

In ALL the known universe, energy maintains both Life and Order. The second law of thermodynamics deals with Entropy and entropy is the inverse measure of “Order”, or said another way, a direct measure of “Disorder”. Entropy works against the movement of price when the flow of energy into the market is reduced. Reduce the Volume entering the market and Entropy will kill the market and lay it to rest. Increase the energy by increasing volume and entropy is disallowed from killing the market.

Historical “trends” are nothing more than examples of the laws of thermodynamics and in fact provide direct evidence for the impact that the laws of this universe have on “systems” such as “financial markets”. The “trend” (bull market or bear market) absolutely requires energy/volume. Volume by definition requires market participation (orders being executed). An order cannot be executed if it does not yet exist. Historical trends absolutely required the transformation of Volume into the movement of Price (potential energy converted into kinetic energy) – Volume/PE must have followed Price/KE at some point in the past and the system’s/market’s Entropy had to have remained high enough in order to disallow the death of the market.

So, when you say you are “trading THE trend”, you can only be trading the Projection that the potential energy (PE) derived from volume will continue to be converted into kinetic energy (KE)/price movement. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed – only converted, and kinetic energy is absolutely required in order to sustain price movement, it is impossible to “trade THE trend”.

Physics applies to every physical instance in this entire universe. Only the very unwise would even think to attempt to remove the force of physics from the physical world we live in each day. My goodness - especially, something as Mechanical and Systematic as the Financial Markets!

Case in point.

 

[dcraig1]

Page Two:


So, when you say you are “trading THE trend”, you can only be trading the Projection that the potential energy (PE) derived from volume will continue to be converted into kinetic energy (KE)/price movement. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed – only converted, and kinetic energy is absolutely required in order to sustain price movement, it is impossible to “trade THE trend”.

Physics applies to every physical instance in this entire universe. Only the very unwise would even think to attempt to remove the force of physics from the physical world we live in each day. My goodness - especially, something as Mechanical and Systematic as the Financial Markets!

Case in point.

Interesting metaphor. Shame it's a lot of nonsense. You cannot have kinetic energy without mass. Price has no mass, volume has no mass. Unless of course we count the mass of fingers thumping on keyboards or clicking mice or the mass of electrons whizzing around in computers running program trading systems.

This is what I call 'scientism' - has a superficially plausible ring to it but there is no scientific basis whatsoever. Why ? Because it is an assertion backed by no experimental evidence at all. Sounds good for paid seminars or peddling dodgy trading systems but thats all there is to it.

Making appeals to 'the laws of physics govern the universe' is just silly. Do researches in biological sciences use string theory in their research ? Or Newtonian mechanics ? Or special or general relativity ? I doubt it. Do engineers designing bridges need quantum mechanics ? Do software engineers need electromagnetic theory ?

As a serious proposition, this kind of reductionism disappeared at the start of the 20th century.

 

[TheBramble]

A “trend” by definition is a past event. Therefore, you can only look back at “history” and claim that a trend existed in the past. But, you can never look forward and prove that the “trend” still exists from the point at which the Trader needs to execute the trade.

7th, you are using you own erroneous logic based on a false premise and faulty logical construction and development to 'prove' your erroneous, faulty, false and illogical deductions. That is clear to all.

God sent me to this thread and that post for a purpose. He gave me a Mission. To show you were, in that very specific issue sof trends, quite wrong. QED.

Doesn't matter how much verbiage you throw at it, it's still plain wrong. You are wrong. And been proven wrong.

Now that I have completed my Mission for His Work I can move on again.

I may pop back from time to time as He so directs, but until then, please continue to enjoy your discussions with your 'friends' on this thread. 😆