Advanced Structured Forex Trading

[TheBramble]

2) Its called “AI”, not “AR”.

No. I've rebranded it AR. Anal retent. In that it never gives a tradeable signal. Hope you don't mind.

 

[wasp]

No. I've rebranded it AR. Anal retent. In that it never gives a tradeable signal. Hope you don't mind.

Come on now Bramble, I just asked a straight forward question and we may still get a simple straight forward answer with logic reasoning and it might turn out that 7th actually trades?

 

[TheBramble]

Sorry Chris. Posted my response to 7th's cryptic snippet before reading your post.

Shall I smite myself again?

 

[wasp]

Sorry Chris. Posted my response to 7th's cryptic snippet before reading your post.

Shall I smite myself again?

You could try asking god as there is no way I could know?

 

[7thSignalTrader]

7th,

I'm curious, in very simple terms, if possible, can you say whether you traded any of today or yesterdays Euro moves and why? I'm not interested in you edge or methods, just after a full days trading, trying to comprehend one of your essays is a tad much, and after reading some of your comments, it would be interesting to hear how you saw it.

Thanks

It is fairly simple. My system signaled a Short from $1.2816 at 000GMT (my engine update time) to $1.2768 and a secondary signal (given at 000GMT) Long at $1.2765 up to $1.2845.

a) 48 pips down.

b) 80 pips up.

c) Currently Holding Long at $1.2795 and will allow the system to dictate if that Hold should be terminated after the next engine update at 000GMT.

Basically, the system had to balance the needs (tendency) of a newly created Monthly Trajectory (Short), overall system bias (Short) and long standing composite Trajectory Dominance (Long). So, it did some things very well while being less than optimal in other things.

1) It got the initial trade correct Short.

2) It got the initial target correct Short (as a direct consequence of #1 being true).

3) It failed to nail the optimal entry into the Long Trajectory.

4) Its failure of #3 forced a less than optimal draw-down condition on the Long trade for 44 pips (I don’t like seeing draw-downs that large on my Day trades).

5) It nailed the correct Dominant Trajectory after recovering from a 44 pip draw-down.

6) Thus far, it is calling the Long Hold condition accurately and will update its decision at 0000GMT on 6/01/06.

The system, at this stage in its life, is all about finding correct balances between many competing signals and indicators and doing its level best to provide me a Trajectory Map of what the “future” might look like over a short time-frame of 24 hours or less. Most of the time I only get one trade per day, sometimes the system projects that two trades have a high probability for success.

The system’s primary role is to protect and preserve capital. It does that by only signaling trades that it “thinks” might have characteristics for high probability. The fact that the system has grown to a point where it can “project” the various twists and turns of a given trading session (like today) has a lot more to do with the continual growth and development (tweaking) the system has undergone over the years and its ability to “learn” from each trading sessions price behavior using its own internal Metadata.

Sometimes, it gets hit by new and ooops – there goes even the best laid plans. But, because it knows to enter trades that already have very high probability for success (as defined by its engine) then the news has to fight against that historical probability which often times results in at least a break-even results despite the news and sometimes even a delayed strike on the primary target. At other times, the news will push price beyond the draw limit and cause a loss of capital. When that happens, I jump back in on the next signal because this version of the system has never had a back-to-back failure on its primary trade profile. This is a Day Trading System.

That’s about as succinct as I can make it.

 

[npn]

7thSignalTrader,
I appreciate your vote in confidence in the system that I've been developing, (well transforming is a better word) and the detailed explanation around the answers to my questions.

I've been switching interest in terms of Data Mining approaches forever. I always thought your particular system would be better fitted/converted into an "Expert System", which learns from experience (hence my #4 question about look up table etc). I agree that it's "too broad (wide/deep)", and forgive me for the straight question, but a simple look up table seemed to be a good fit for Excel, even though too simplistic. Expert Systems allow you to build a rule-base language system, which "learns" from experience. They are very different, and not to be confused with Neural Networks. The ES would deal with Certainties, which are nothing but historical performance under given conditions. That's how ES find patterns. Also with ES you have the option to incorporate a rule, an "expertise" that you know/posses.

/This feels like deja vu, I made a similar post a while ago/
Neural Nets felt more challenging to me, and that's why I took that approach. Thanks again for the confidence about the 75%, but I somehow don't feel convinced in it's usability, hence my coming back to reading your posts and finding more information in order to improve the performance. Sadly to say, I already mentioned this to Echelon4x, some components of your system didn't contribute at all depending on the situation. In NNs, a useless input makes things worse, thus it gets eliminated - it creates conflicts, saturates neurons, slows down the training process, makes the NN memorize vs generalize. So when I say, 75%, I can't really say that this NN model is purely based on your system. And, I should actually say it is not fully utilizing all your core components. I do know that every single piece in your system plays an important role, so my conclusion is (no surprise) "I don't know enough". I can share more about the actual models and results, and why I need to improve them before I trust the system.

10% margin of error at the tips will ALSO provide you with lots of protection against adverse news – depending on when that adverse news hits your trade. That adverse news (if it comes near an entry) will only serve to push the “current” Trajectory into more of an extreme condition which in turn will often times lead to an even bigger recoil back into the other Trajectory.

I am not sure if I understand this in relation to the NN results, but I believe this applies to the case today (6/01/06). In terms of NNs, (someone mentioned this here I believe) they treat the data as if it contained the news. This is amazing! It all goes back to "action-reaction" concept, plus the importance of the use of calendar days. Why? Most expected news with unexpected results do come in almost fixed periods.

Daily, Weekly and Monthly data is averaged over 24 periods and I use 21 in the engine. Between 40 to 20 seem to work well. My Annual data is not finished yet, but I should be able to get about 15 to 17 periods after I reformat the Interbank data to fit inside my real-time database. So, I won’t get 21 years worth, but I should have more than enough Annual data to use in the engine when I am done.

Sadly, my numbers do not agree with yours. I have used 21 bars as well. And yes, there might be a slight difference, since I am at GMT+2, but still I did compare them with the numbers on you "Blended RT TCD Performance" of a screenshot that you posted not long ago. I guess I am asking the wrong question.

Thanks again for your vote of confidence!

npn

 

[7thSignalTrader]

No. I've rebranded it AR. Anal retent. In that it never gives a tradeable signal. Hope you don't mind.

No, I don't mind trash like this coming from naysayers.

What else can you do but create fictional accounts of things that have already happened, or that never happened at all - LOL!

Go back and take a look at ALL (you do understand what the word "ALL" means) the Dashboard's posted where the Day trades were made in this thread - just for fun. It should be an eye opening experience for you - but I doubt it.

Anyone that would see a trade being made and then claim no trade was made, is either delusional, or blind - or quite possibly both. You are very good at maintaining this non-sequitur amusement and that accounts for most of your several thousand posts. Your posts with no content, no meaning, no purpose, and no value can make you “look legendary”. But, once you are fully engaged in dialog on the merits, facts and details of a topic, you fold like a cheap suit right back into the meaningless, petty, childish Ramblings (TheRamble) non-sequitur off-shoots that make one so “legendary”.

Why do you think I’ve keep you around this long – without placing you immediately on the Naysayer/Troll Ignore List? It is because I wanted to make an example of why naysayers just don’t get it with your attempt to prove that you can trade a trend. A naysayer will deny their own Mother, if it meant admitting that they were wrong. And, you have proven my point for me with your lack of meaningful reply to how you can trade something that to you, from your position in the time-line, simply cannot exist.

The very fact that you even continued to prove the physically impossible with no one single shred of logical and/or coherent counter argument, was the most telling of all.

You guys (naysayers) are a dime a dozen and 50% off on Weekends! LOL Too funny!

I'll keep you around because you are the BEST example for someone wanting to understand the clear distinction between a TCD Traders and so-called "Trend Traders" that I can possibly think of, and I'll make an example of you every time you inject yourself into dialog that is way over your head. Not because you don't have the brains to understand this stuff, you do! But, because your naysaying attitude weakens you level of understanding about things that clearly could make you a far better trader than you are right now - regardless of how "successful" you "think" you are.

If you are not trading the current TCD in phase - then you are by definition, losing money because "price" can ONLY move along one or the other and NEVER through any other channel. Trading without them, is like trading blind. Many do - and don't even know it. Many "guess" right and just happen to connect with the right TCD at the right time during "part" of its active phase and yet never knowing how to measure it, or have any idea when it is about to expire.

So, they go on trading like that - not fully understanding the depths of the waters they swim. When the new tidal wave comes in the form of a new TCD initializing, they simply chalk it up to the fact that no one can trade better than 65% accuracy and eventually all traders will do no more than 50% to 65% accuracy, so why bother with trying to understand what just happened. Not understanding all the while that their failure to measure the Magnitude and Condition/Status of the currently active TCD, is what caused them to rejoin the ranks of the 50% to 65% crowd.

I've said two (2) years ago on this board that there really was a "better way to trade" and that this system actually existed, though I showed no pics or posted no trades back then. This thread has already proven those two facts from the very first post I made, to the last.

So, I’ll never place you on the Naysaying/Troll/Banned list simply because you are the classic iconoclast of what Naysaying is all about. So, rather than reply to all of them, I’ll continually share the facts as they are with one (you) and watch you scramble for cover under that non-sequitur rock you crawled out from under. LOL!

Now, do you have another technical topic about trading that you wish to discuss relative to THIS system? I'd be more than giddy to have that discussion with you on the merrits. LOL!

Hope you don't mind.

 

[TheBramble]

OK 7th I'll engage with you sensibly.

I switched you and your Willy Wonker SFX machine off a long time ago, long before you left these boards for ever, for the second time, when I realised you weren't for real, any more than your imaginary chums with apparently different IP addresses, but I did find the TREND issue such a hoot. If you had any unscarred tissue on what remains of your feet, you'd have had another hit!

Try this. I'm quite serious. Let's get terribly serious and sensible.

Perhaps when you were very little, your Mum or Dad used to measure how tall you were. Perhaps once a week. Once a month. Every few months. I don't know if they did or they didn't.

But if you can imagine they did, and they plotted your height on some graph paper with your height on the Y-axis and the date of the measurement on the X-axis - what do you think you would see in that resultant line?

What would YOU call that line? Try not to use the 'T' word. Difficult, isn't it.

Most of us out here would could that a pretty good Trend line. You could extrapolate where that line MIGHT go, and that would be constructing a projection, but constructing a projection of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. That is, what already exists. That which is in plain sight. That at which any old stick could be shaken. You could roll a dead parrot down it.

It is your unfortunate lot to have come head-to-head with one of the few of us that survive to this day. Yes, none other than one of "The Knights that like to say 'TREND!'".

While i'm on the subject of basics...and I'm only just warming up...

...What do YOU call that imaginary level on a chart that the price keeps bumping up into and falling back away from from a few times? Is that in the future too. Is the price less likely or more likely to bounce a 3rd time if it's definitely already bounced twice?

 

[7thSignalTrader]

7thSignalTrader,...

I agree that it's "too broad (wide/deep)", and forgive me for the straight question, but a simple look up table seemed to be a good fit for Excel, even though too simplistic.

Well, you know databases, so you know that a "look-up table" concept used in Excel can be done in several different ways. Excel itself has two basic "look-up table" functions, but those were woefully inadequate for what I needed after I explored what they could do for me. So, I ended up creating the “280 BT” database and I use it just like I would a relational metadata database in the sense that it stored all previous trade signal configurations (along with other critical projection metadata) in 280 rows. Whether inside an RDBMS or a Flat File database, the data is “stored” and is used to produce input into the current (real-time) signal cluster. So, the “Expert System” concepts comes as the system uses the stored 280 BT data as it makes its decisions about “today’s” projections for “tomorrow’s” price behavior.

So, you can see the “Expert Systems” concept at play there when the 280 BT is used. Without 280 BT, the system would still makes its real-time projections, but it would not have the benefit of past/previous “decisions made” by the system AND their outcomes. With Excel, I have total control over the primary structure that I use to build everything related to signal generation (tools, indicators, signals, modules, clustering, formulas, etc.) so, I’m not tied to a specific platforms capabilities. When I need a new capability/function, I just design and build it into the system and I can tailor it to be as flexible as necessary to give me the metadata output that I’m looking for and that I need to plug into the primary brain of the system.

So, I could have used NST for example, or any of the current platforms out there right now, but I would not have the same degree of design freedom that I have right now. The draw-back is that it takes an enormous amount of time to build something like this when you have to design everything inside the system from scratch!

All you have with Excel is an empty Cell location, a keyboard and a mouse. Everything else is up to you and your creative and research ability. Sill, a really good neural net CAN greatly assist in finding optimal conditions for a “specific” configuration of questions/algorithms. But, you still have to tell the system (whether Excel or an NN platform) what it should use as inputs, and building that input by hand in Excel is very time consuming, but it is also custom tailored to meet specific needs. That flexibility won’t always be found in other platforms.

Expert Systems allow you to build a rule-base language system, which "learns" from experience. They are very different, and not to be confused with Neural Networks. The ES would deal with Certainties, which are nothing but historical performance under given conditions. That's how ES find patterns. Also with ES you have the option to incorporate a rule, an "expertise" that you know/posses.

At the same time, NN’s can be used (and often times are used this way in some of the Corporate Business Intelligence applications projects that I’ve worked on in the past when I was in that world) up front “feed” more optimal values into a Decision Support Tool such as an Expert System, or Business Intelligence Platform.

For example:

I worked on the Texaco/Chevron Merger from the perspective of a system’s engineer doing integration work and design work on the new Knowledge Base System that would combine both of their search engine production systems as well as other things. In that case, you had two very large business concerns needing to rebuild a search engine with optimized search capability, create a new metadata database, create a new business intelligence engine and wrap it all up into a single seamless integrated Corporate Portal for “easy of use”. In this case, an NN was used as part of the knowledge base and later as part of the overall business intelligence scope. Users never interacted with it directly – they never even knew it was there, but they did experience faster, better and more precise search as well as improved projections at the executive and upper management levels relative to longer range business intelligence functions.

So, this is one example of where NN’s were used in production on the back-end to boost/augment an overall “Expert Systems” deployment in the form of Corporate style EIS (executive information systems).

Neural Nets felt more challenging to me, and that's why I took that approach. Thanks again for the confidence about the 75%, but I somehow don't feel convinced in it's usability, hence my coming back to reading your posts and finding more information in order to improve the performance.

75% on a daily basis is huge and a great milestone. You won’t find very many traders on this board (outside of yours truly) or any other trading at that level on a DAILY basis. That is a whole lot different than entering one trade every few weeks, or several days apart and only seeing 50% to 60% accuracy – and if the truth be told, most pure Day Traders who enter the market every day are not even seeing that level of success.

In all of my previous trade journals, I was entering trades every single day with a couple of excepts caused by anomalistic data entering the system generating a mixed signal and the vast majority of all of my journals on the web are in the 90%+ range for accuracy. So, 75% “daily” (and that’s that big difference) is something that anyone can take to the bank as they continue to develop and push their system to higher levels of success. There are many on this board that wish they could trade like that – “daily”!

Sadly to say, I already mentioned this to Echelon4x, some components of your system didn't contribute at all depending on the situation. In NNs, a useless input makes things worse, thus it gets eliminated - it creates conflicts, saturates neurons, slows down the training process, makes the NN memorize vs generalize. So when I say, 75%, I can't really say that this NN model is purely based on your system. And, I should actually say it is not fully utilizing all your core components.

It does not matter. 75% is 75% regardless of what is being used to generate it. It is the results that matter. You will never be able to recreate my system in an NN platform. That platform cannot reproduce what this system does. It can only be used as a ”tool” for helping you locate good indicators, signals and/or logical inputs into a baseline trading system.

NN’s are not trading systems – they can be great research tools, but won’t ever reproduce the architecture and thus the output of a system like this. You will be able to take certain concepts from the system in isolation and explore what happens when applying them to an NN model, but it won’t ever be possible to recreate the entire system using an NN. Two different concepts in purpose and design of the tool.

So, if you are getting anything at all from the ”concept” of a TCD (which is all I’ve discussed thus far) and you can find a way to apply to an NN platform and that application yields improved trading results, it won’t matter that it is used in conjunction with conventional TA concepts – as long as it works.

The only thing you could do at this point is combine “concepts” of TCD with another trading system or sub-system or strategy/tactic that you already use. So, those are outstanding results regardless of whether or not they came 100% or 10% of what you picked-up about TCDs. Nothing sad about 75% trading accuracy and 10% margins on tops and bottoms on a daily basis regardless of how much TCD value was used.

I am not sure if I understand this in relation to the NN results, but I believe this applies to the case today (6/01/06). In terms of NNs, (someone mentioned this here I believe) they treat the data as if it contained the news. This is amazing! It all goes back to "action-reaction" concept, plus the importance of the use of calendar days. Why? Most expected news with unexpected results do come in almost fixed periods.

Yes – when you stop to think about what TA really is – you end up having to admit that you are analyzing numeric “data” and that data is generated whether there is “news” or not. So, any TA therefore, must also by definition be a numerical analysis of market fundamentals. By definition this is true since all market data includes “all” news and fundamental inputs.

One cannot extract the impact of news and fundamentals from market data. Thus, any analysis of said market data must also be Fundamental Analysis from a numerical standpoint. Heck, that’s exactly the definition of “Technical Analysis”!

Here it is:

Technical Analysis = Numerical Analysis of Fundamentals

Simple. There will always be a fraction of all “Technical Analysis” that is based on “Fundamentals” of the market as all fundamental inputs reside inside the domain of market data. So, we so-called “Technicians” of the market could not escape the Fundamentals of the market even if we tried. (lol). There is no escape from Fundamentals no matter what we do. We need Fundamentals! No Fundamentals – no movement. No movement – no trade. No trade – no profit. No profit – no reason to be in this business.

Sadly, my numbers do not agree with yours. I have used 21 bars as well. And yes, there might be a slight difference, since I am at GMT+2, but still I did compare them with the numbers on you "Blended RT TCD Performance" of a screenshot that you posted not long ago. I guess I am asking the wrong question.

If your calculations were set-up the exact same way, the numbers would match. You would have to build-out all rows of data and use the exact same “averaging method” that I use. I gave the “baselines”, not my production set-ups. I tell people to develop their own advanced tools after I give then the baseline 30 indicators and show them how to set them up in Excel.

I tweak my numbers all over the system. That’s part of the ongoing development process. I use ”Modifiers” on almost all of the original baseline output from the core indicators. Those modifiers were developed over a number of years – can’t happen over night because it takes time to get through all of the really big tweaks until you reach a time when most of your development time is spent doing very small, minor tweaks with increasing time-intervals between tweaks. That’s how you know that your system is being optimized.

When you reach a point where your tweaks no longer matter in the final output (results) of the system, then you know you have pushed the current version of the system just about as far as you can. The next step would be to create completely new tools or concepts and then integrate them into a new version of the system (to improve it), or simple settle down and trade what you have.

At some point you will find that tweaking no longer improves performance. That’s when you know you are done with your project.

Hope that helps.

 

[npn]

7thSignalTrader,

Yes, that did help in further understanding your approach.

So, I ended up creating the “280 BT” database and I use it just like I would a relational metadata database in the sense that it stored all previous trade signal configurations (along with other critical projection metadata) in 280 rows. Whether inside an RDBMS or a Flat File database, the data is “stored” and is used to produce input into the current (real-time) signal cluster. So, the “Expert System” concepts comes as the system uses the stored 280 BT data as it makes its decisions about “today’s” projections for “tomorrow’s” price behavior.”

I suspected you had something like this, after all I’ve read your posts about your 280 BT, but I see that you’re using the 280 rows more for validating the input vs. the probability for success. 280 rows are far away from enough (again given my limited understanding of your system) to produce probabilities. If I’m mistaking, then this system must be less complicated in the core, but tuned to a high degree.

I fully agree that NN can never recreate the same thing, and I never intended to do so. I was aiming for a hybrid solution ES/NN that would be ideal, with one model predicting High, another Low, another Timing, and the ES validating all. I also do calculate, shape, and validate all my inputs in Excel. Many NN packages do interface directly with Excel! How cool is that?

If you think about it, in your language my NN model (as it is now) only provides the numbers related to Magnitude. Timing, Probability and Direction are missing! Nothing can be done about Probability, but Direction/Timing, (I bet you’ve thought about this) can be approached. I have plugged inputs into a NN Model, which worked on your “Location Binding” principle. I haven’t completely explored the possibility there, but one thing can say – training the model is difficult given the FIFO is not the same as … don’t want to go there publicly!

Do you know that there are two distinct beliefs regarding whether the data does incorporate news? This in Neural Nets is addressed by combining both TA and Fundamentals into inputs, but more important, (I’m sure you are aware of this) the use of lag variables. Have you thought of finding use of this concept? Same elements same triggers, but delayed by 30 or 45 days, actually both!
I guess it makes sense, in long-term investments the results of news are sometimes considered a month or so later. For example, you hear the budget deficit increased, but you don’t bail out, you wait in hopes.

At the end, what you’ve made is amazing considering the tools that you’ve worked with. I guess that’s what’s important – do you own thing! Unfortunately the road to “there” is not simple or straight as just following someone. The results and awards though are priceless!

npn

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Page One of Two:

Now, let’s examine each one of your claims, comments and theories in the full light of day, shall we.

…I switched you and your Willy Wonker SFX machine off a long time ago,…

That is called taking an action based on a “Declarative”. You took an action in the real world to “switch off” something in the past denoted by your “long time ago” comment. So, this demonstrates your ability to make decisions – which should be further explored. It shows your decision making capability and your ability to discern good from bad. So, let us examine your decision making ability, here.

1) You have not the slightest clue about what makes the system work, or not work. You have no conceivable notion of what constitutes this system. You have little to zero knowledge about any functional aspect of the system, whatsoever. In order for a “sensible” human being to know whether or not a thing has merit (is good or bad), he must actually have knowledge about said “thing” on the premises. In the case of a trading system, a “sensible” human being would have to have done one or more of the following in order to have knowledge about the system such that he/she was able to make smart decisions about what is “good” and/or “bad:

a) Used the system him/herself directly and explicitly according the guidelines of the user manual.

b) Know someone with integrity that has traded the system according to the guidelines of the user manual and has knowledge about the system on the premises as a direct result of his/her use of the system.

c) Observed someone directly using the system through demonstrations, trade journals, etc., for a period of time commensurate with and consistent with that which would be routinely considered suitable for the purposes of offering a valuation on the performance of said system.

In order to demonstrate good decision making ability (which all of us expect a “Legendary Member” to possess), you would have to possess the ability to counter the argument given above in #1 and/or prove “a”, “b” or “c”.

Question: Which one of these requirements have you met?

Answer: None.

…long before you left these boards for ever, for the second time,…

That’s called a statement of fact made through a Declarative argument. When one makes a statement of fact through a declarative, one is basically vouching for their own credibility offering up their words as proof of evidence of the fact. In order to prove this statement as fact, you would need to satisfy the following:

1) Present to this forum a post where I made the declarative that I was leaving ”this forum” (in your words) “for ever”.

The word “for” is used as either a prepositional phrase, or it will often times be used as a conjunction. You could not have been using the word as a prepositional phrase and if you used the word as a conjunction, then that would by (logical extension) mean that you misapplied the word “ever”. In either case, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, right now.

Question: When have you ever read or seen a post on this forum where I stated that I was leaving this board “forever” and did so twice?

Answer: Never.

…when I realised you weren't for real,…

This is routinely called an personal epiphany. You suddenly came to the realization that I was not “real”. Epiphany proofing is extremely difficult to do systematically given the huge psychological underpinnings of the one claiming to have undergone an epiphany, or sudden realization of something outside of themselves. One can never fully understand the inner workings of the mind claiming to have experienced and epiphany.

Therefore, I will leave the emotional, psychological and spiritual causality of your personal epiphany to the experts such as the psychologists, therapists, and spiritual “gurus” that you may or may NOT be in routine contact with on a daily basis and instead focus on the “context” of your personal epiphany relative to time-line.

In order to know what is “real”, one must demonstrate experience with that which would indicate that he/she would have the slightest clue about whether or not a thing he/she encountered was substantively sufficient to be considered, “real”. Thus far in your post, you’ve made no show of proof that you even had a basis for determining what was “real” and/or not real at this point in your statement about a historical event that you vouched for (now a credibility issue for you) as having actually taken place.

Question: At what point in history did you obtain the substantive knowledge and/or experience directly related to Me and/or this trading technology, that would be sufficient to bring about the personal epiphany that I was not “real”, given that you had zero prior knowledge of either previously?

Answer: Never.

…any more than your imaginary chums with apparently different IP addresses,…

That’s called a derivative of an underlying “Declarative” argument. This means that you once again place YOUR credibility on the line as you vouch for elements you place into evidence as “fact”. An IP address denotes the hexadecimal number being used by a specific node on an IP network. However, what you failed to realize before making this statement is that the MAC Address specifically identifies the network card (nic card) or these days, the modem being used by a specific node on an IP network which is not removable from the hardware it identifies. Whereas, the IP address could be spoofed, the MAC Address cannot.

I have one userid on this forum now, one computer, one 100 mbps Ethernet modem, one MAC address and one IP address through a DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) server dished out by my ISP. That means that there are two (2) sources that confirms my IP address and MAC address where you have confirmed none:

1) My HS-ISP Administrator.

2) Trade2Win’s Forum (and/or) System Administrator.

Secondarily, in order for you to be able to show proof for your declarative stated above, you need to have in your possession the IP Addresses and in a perfect world, the MAC Addresses that I am using in multiples of impossibility that you claim as being “real”. You have already vouched for this as being “fact” and have thus placed your credibility on the line once again. Therefore, you must now produce evidence that I or anyone else on this forum is broadcasting multiple IP Addresses. You vouched for this with a declarative statement, so you now need to demonstrate that such arguments have merit. Failing this, the only conclusion that one can draw from this is that you did not tell the truth.

This notwithstanding, let’s inject this declarative of yours into the ONLY topic of conversation inside this thread, where you have demonstrated something slightly higher than a high school education - that topic being “trends” as I have stipulated their non-existence for the Trader at trade execution time.

Questions:

A) What are the IP Addresses that I’ve used on this forum (or, any other forum for that matter) and what are the specific usernames (nicks) that fit into your basket of “Chums” theory? (show you work, as a good teacher would say)

B) What relevance does an IP Address(es) have to the question of whether or not a “trend” can be traded in real-time by one executed said trade in the “present” and not the “future” or “past”?

Answers:

A) You have none because they don’t exist – made them up as you go along to escape from the reality that now binds you.

B) None.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Page Two of Two:

…but I did find the TREND issue such a hoot.

This would be a statement of “Comprehension”, but (sadly for you) after further examination we are left with the following problem. Since you found the “trend” issue a “hoot” – AND - your entire argument was demonstrated as moot given the obvious fact that a Trader can’t trade historical trends (which was clearly demonstrated to anyone with a brain) – we are left wondering whether or not the “hoot” was really just a cover-up for complete and utter speechlessness.

Questions:

A) Do you exist?

B) If so, what is the proof of your existence?

C) If your academic background showed an historical “trend” towards Finance & Economics with an emphasis on financial markets that are tradable – AND – if your academic background could be traded from the time you entered College through today, would someone have made a profit by going Long on you becoming a Trader in 2006, by trading your “historical academic trend” towards financially traded markets from your first day of College?

Answers:

A) Yes.

B) You have a physical instantiation in space/time (whether you are on this planet or not, is a completely different question, however.)

C) Absolutely No.

(Any attempt to now change your theory about “trends” is starting to look really bleak at this point – no?)

…If you had any unscarred tissue on what remains of your feet, you'd have had another hit!

And, if you could just slightly get up to speed here, your trading would improve a great deal more than you know!

…Try this. I'm quite serious. Let's get terribly serious and sensible.

Rather than come to grips with the clear fact that you are so far removed from the routine league of simple minded colloquialisms and pretentious solutions that you are so used to here, you instead proffer this pretentious (and quite transparent) quip of being “on top of things”, here. Humor me!

… they plotted your height on some graph paper with your height on the Y-axis and the date of the measurement on the X-axis - what do you think you would see in that resultant line? What would YOU call that line? Try not to use the 'T' word. Difficult, isn't it.

I’m going to give you one more time to get the concept of pre-emergence based on a projection, but if you don’t get this time, you will forever be labeled: bizarre!

Let’s not be this painfully general about the matter. Let’s cut to the chase with the details that you love to leave out, shall we. Using your own example to help you understand – here is the scenario in detail that you just laid out in vague and general terms:

Starting at age 5 on January 1st, 1950, your parents begin the long process (that should be a clue right there) of taking your height measurements at 1 week intervals until your 15th birthday until sometime after the last measurement taken on January 1st, 1960. A grand total of 480 readings have been taken as you progressed through the years.

Now, what would such a matrix look like. How about this:

January 1st, 1950: Height = X
January 8th, 1950: Height = x+1
January 15th, 1950: Height = (x+1)+1
January 22nd, 1950: Height = ((x+1)+1)+1
January 23rd, 1950: Height = (((x+1)+1)+1)+1

10 years later, you have hopefully grown a little and your new height on January 1st, 1965 is some factor of X over 10 years relative to each increase, or decrease in the measurement taken over the same time-period. During the process, on each 1 week interval/measurement, your Father drew a line connecting the previous value in height to his present measurement. He drew simple lines to accomplish that task from each measurement in the past to the present measurement at the time he took each reading. Sometime on January 1st, 1960, he took his final reading number 480.

Questions:

A) What was an absolute requirement in order for your Father to have enough information about YOU to draw his very first line that proved YOU indeed did grow in height between January 1st, 1950 and January 8th, 1950?

B) What was an absolute requirement in order for your Father to have enough information about YOU to draw his very last line that proved YOU indeed did grow in height between the last week in December and January 1st, 1960?

C) What is it about this concept that you STILL fail to fully understand?

Answers:

A) He ABSOLUTELY needed to see that you had “grown” in the “past” to a new height on that day, or else NO line showing your history of growth from between January 1st, 1950 to January 8th, 1950 (assuming super fast growth) could possibly have been drawn.

B) He ABSOLUTELY needed to see that you had “grown” in the “past” to a newer height on that day, or else NO line showing your history of growth from between the last measurement day in December 1959, to January 1st, 1960 (assuming any growth at all occurred either physically or mentally – just kidding!) could possibly have been drawn.

C) I have no idea why you fail to see this!

So, every single time your Father reached for that pen to take your height measurement, he was ALWAYS standing at position “B” used in my previous example in another post. He could never have stood at position “A” to take your measurement. And, that is the critical point that you continually miss.

In your mind, you are totally and completely incapable of properly separating YOUR physical existence and physical location from that of the physical existence and location of the historical trend.

Your Father, absolutely needed as a 100% ironclad necessity, knowledge of YOUR physical growth BEFORE he could have any clue about what direction to paint your growth line. Therefore, how could he possibly have placed a bet with his friends that you would CONTINUE to grow at a specific rate and in a specific direction using your historical growth trend because your growth trend was in the past and not the present, or the future. He could have only made a projection based on your historical growth trend. Got it now?

Additional related questions:

D) How many midgets have you seen in your lifetime?
E) How many children world wide die from XYZ causes long before they ever reach age 10?
F) What promise did your Father have that you would reach age 10 absent some kind of ABC physical deformity that stunted your growth?
G) How many variables were completely UNKNOWN to your Father when he was plotting your height progression from year to year?

Your Father would have been restricted by his humanness, just like you are today. He would not have been able to bet on your historical height trend and you are not able to “trade” the historical price trend today. All your Father could have done was estimate his best guess that you would even be ALIVE to see your 10th birthday, let along how tall you would have been on that day. Case in point and made crystal clearly using your OWN example.

… Most of us out here would could that a pretty good Trend line.…

Correct! You got one – wow! Yes – you would be able to plot a really good trend line just like any 5yr old could by simply looking at what your Father had already done with his measurements. At no time, however, would anyone on the planet be able to place a bet on January 1st, 1950, that you would even be alive on January 1st, 1960, based on your growth to January 1st, 1960, because January 1st, 1960 FOR THEM had not occurred yet. This is so simple and easy to understand, geepers.

… You could extrapolate where that line MIGHT go, and that would be constructing a projection,…

Hello! Anyone home? What do you think I’ve been saying all this time! This is ALL that one could do with the previous height recordings that your Father took in his past. His physical presence in the past is separate and fully distinct from your demonstrated historical growth trend at each point where he took a measurement. This appropriately separates the physical instance from the logical extraction. This is too easy for you to be missing like this.

… but constructing a projection of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. That is, what already exists. That which is in plain sight. That at which any old stick could be shaken. You could roll a dead parrot down it.

A “projection” and nothing more. What you fail to understand is that the projection does equal the trend. Here, allow me to spell this out for you plainly and vividly as if I have not already done this a thousand times already:

P R O J E C T I O N <> T R E N D

They are NOT one and the same thing. They may or may not be closely related on ANY Day trade. The trend is in the past – that’s yesterday’s news. The trend IS the past by physical and logical definition. It cannot be a present and/or future event because it MUST have ALREADY happened. Therefore, (for the millionth time) you cannot trade that which is ALREADY KNOWN and IN THE PAST. You can ONLY trade a Projection of that which is ALREADY KNOWN “about” the past. Which I have said now many times over.

… It is your unfortunate lot to have come head-to-head with one of the few of us that survive to this day. Yes, none other than one of "The Knights that like to say 'TREND!'".

Not if you don’t understand the awesomely simple concept that you cannot execute on that which is already in history – LOL! I’m the original StealthTrader. I created the concept years ago – so what. I fully understand the difference between the past, the present and the future – which you have firmly demonstrated severely difficulties with and I did that long before I invented StealthTrading.

… While i'm on the subject of basics...and I'm only just warming up...

If you call the fact that you are unable to substantiate any understanding of the fact that the past is the past, the present is the present and the future is the future, then I would say that you need a lot more warming up there guy!

…...What do YOU call that imaginary level on a chart that the price keeps bumping up into and falling back away from from a few times? Is that in the future too. Is the price less likely or more likely to bounce a 3rd time if it's definitely already bounced twice?

Basic TA practitioners and those that don’t fully understand what a TCD is all about, call those imaginary lines in your world: Resistance and Support. But, this is the very point. This is the ancient and archaic generalizations of the masses that simply don’t have any better tool for describing price behavior and measuring its pulse.

It is most certainly not the historical trend because it has no physical instantiation anywhere in the universe. It is a pure psychological level at which the majority of the market at “that time” has already decided that price will go no higher, or no lower. In today’s modern market, with electronic trading now pervasive in just about any country (you could take a laptop with a wireless satellite connection and trade from the some of the most remote regions on earth these days), most of those imaginary lines in your world are augmented with electronically triggered executions that either support the “imaginary lines” or move them away to some degree.

So, this is nothing more than a straw man argument and it is not even a well constructed straw man argument. These are psychological elements of the market, not historical trends. One has nothing to do with the other – a total non-sequitur in all its glory.

Whether or not “price” bounces off or plows through one of those imaginary lines in your world is EXACTLY the problem you have as you have NO WAY of knowing, LOL! However, a serious TCD trader (one skilled in the art of TCD interpretation, or one having built a system based on TCDs) has no problem whatsoever carrying a trade through an imaginary line of resistance and/or support. Why? Because the TCD Trader understands that no financially traded market can go anywhere (long or short) without Omega (Magnitude) and TCDs (Direction).

If your imaginary line of resistance or support gets in the way of a large scale TCD, then you will either be left out in the cold having missed your entry, or you will be wondering what the license plate was on the MACK Truck the just ran over your trade, because when a large scale TCD starts to move, nothing short of “adverse” news itself will stop it, about 100% of the time.

That is why understanding what a TCD is, how it works, why it works, and WHEN it is about to launch, trumps anything that you could ever imagine being important about a simple minded “trend”.

The “historical trend” is your friend UNTIL it comes to an abrupt end. TCDs go inside that trend to explore WHEN that historical trend has the highest probability of becoming your worst nightmare!

Take if from my last two long-term trades. My Swing and Outlook trades go toasted all because of an Annual TCD Long that had already initiated back on January 1st, 2006. Because I did not have the Annual TCD data in my system, my Swing and Outlook trades were way out of balance and leaning too strongly to the predictive side of the system’s signal producing algorithm.

As a direct consequence of trading against the Dominant TCD/Trajectory on a long-term basis, my Swing and Outlook got hammered into the ground – right where they belonged. You don’t hear me crying about it, because I now fully understand exact why it happened AND I have the data to insure that it does not happen next January 1st, 2007.

You are either trading projections taken from TCDs, or you are guessing. There are NO other trajectories to trade while the active TCD is on the move. You either move with it, or you are toast.

 

[TheBramble]

7th - what has anything in the last two dreadfully boring posts got to do with the real business of trading?

1. You have too much time on your hands.

2. You appear to have above average intelligence and intellect, but are p!ssing it away. (JMHO)

3. Inventing new terms for basic trading setups and phenomena can be anything from a fun pastime to an intellectual arrogance, but it's no substitute for actually trading.

4. Unless I'm criminally wrong, you are/were Trade Vector. You amended to the point of deletion (but not quite - AR again?) most of your posts in a fit of pique and lack of the expected levels of adoration from the crowd.

If I'm wrong on this last point I will apologise. But if I'm not -

MODS - why is this guy allowed to register with another nick when it is still AFAIAA an automatic banning offence to do so?

 

[soccer_daemon]

Hi 7th
Just trying to get some basic concept in sync so I can be sure of my own interpretation.

New TCD initiation is the subordinate that hits the bottom (very low TAC, very -ve for RT) and
starting to turn the corner up ... right ? Although accurately predicting that will be the crux of it.
Expiration of the dominant is just the opposite.

TCD continuation should only appy to the TCD that was the most current -ve and has just
started to turn up, yes ?

Thanks
SD

This is what the TCD Trader can see…

a1) New Daily Bar with Daily TCD Short continuation with high retention.

b1) Old Weekly Bar with Daily TCD Short continuation with high retention AND Weekly TCD Short continuation with low retention and projecting Long.

c1) New Monthly Bar with Daily TCD Short continuation with high retention AND Weekly TCD Short continuation with low retention and projecting Long AND Monthly TCD Short continuation with high retention.

d1) Old Annual Bar with Daily TCD Short continuation with high retention AND Weekly TCD Short continuation with low retention and projecting Long AND Monthly TCD Short continuation with high retention AND Annual TCD Short terminated with high Long retention and projecting Long.

Down + Down + Down + Up = Go Short or sell on rally.

Clearly, using TCD concepts AND paying attention to which bars are initiating or terminating their respective time-frames, is critically important. Hopefully this example shows you why.

 

[hornblower]

Not very popular on Elite trader.
I seem to remember
who is he posting all this stuff to?
I never read it ,
I just pass on the other side
I have better things to do with my time

 

[chestney]

Not very popular on Elite trader.
I seem to remember
who is he posting all this stuff to?
I never read it ,
I just pass on the other side
I have better things to do with my time

True.

But as a lesson in self ego massaging, it is truly entertaining.

 

[trendie]

True.

But as a lesson in self ego massaging, it is truly entertaining.

so very true.

.....
3. Inventing new terms for basic trading setups and phenomena can be anything from a fun pastime to an intellectual arrogance, but it's no substitute for actually trading.
.....

TheBrambles above quote is the most illustrative of this whole thread.
Dominant/subordinate = primary-trend/pullbacks etc
projection = trend ( despite the tortuous explanations to the contrary )

7th made references to "TCDs tend to seek equilibrium" = reversion to mean.

clearly, 7th desires to be perceived as an original thinker, to the extent of wanting to re-invent long-recognised terms in new ways.

then of course there are other issues;
the admonishing of TheBramble of not understanding 7ths system, even though 7th has stated himself he will not disclose it. Logically, NO-ONE knows his system, except himself.

I see parallels between 7th and Socrates:

both claim to have unique knowledge, either psychological insights or technical insights;

both make references to this knowledge, but are unwilling to declare what it is;
( with 7ths wonderful system that he has spent six (6) years developing, but still adds new bits every other day, and Socrates futorological temporal-displacement insights )

both cannot bear the thought of someone challenging them, and proceed onto convoluted posts to re-inforce their sense of superiority.

both fail to accept their own limitations, and descend into condescension to the other party.
( Socco reverts to implied superior insights, 7th just bangs on about relativity and neutrons and electon-shells )

I LOVE this thread. Please keep it going.

 

[Lighthouse]

Just back for my amusement fix while waiting for the NFP.

You have to give this fruitloop credit for delusional persistence !

Ok lets run through the CV.

1. Previous handles. He has posted probably across every FX board there is under god knows how many names, but he has admitted he is Tradevector/ Turbine Trader amongst probably 20 other handles

2. He trades 1000 lot's at a time getting 200:1 leverage at the press of a button. that's a 1 billion trade folks ! I only get 50:1 and I certainly don't have an a/c value of 1m

3. He was leaving last year to do the following, a) Write a book, b) Buy a small island, c) Help design and put into production a new general purpose executive jet,

4. He lamblasts anyone who actualy posts live trade calls as they are "fools for not being able to trade with 98% accuracy

5. When he actualy posts his own trades and then gets blown out of the water with 200-300 pip losses three times in a row he comes back with 1000 word rants explaining how the world is in fact flat and we are idiots for not recognising that.

6. He has a small but dedicated band of sad souls who follow him from forum to forum with praise. Why they don't just get together on skype I will never know. That's how I communicate with close trading colleagues.

7. I could go on and on......................

If you actualy read what he writes it really is absolute gibberish, and he constantly contradicts himself.

As some of you have pointed out, he has intelligence of sorts but has no idea about markets or actual trading.

A very sad and lonely individual I think.

 

[fxmarkets]

well, I can see oxen on a misty hilltop at dawn ,snorting, if they do ,kicking up dust , because its dusty.. circling and sucking in huge amounts of frozen air........ ones gotta go off the hilltop..... meanwhile the dance goes on....

its good to watch though......hmmm

I had a look at the thread beginning before i type this ,but whats

TCD ?

if its been written in the thread then i'll have a look..

theres TAC too. ?

Trend Contiunation Delta?

Trend Acceleration Control ?

tounge in cheek there but whats the breakdown ?

 

[Lighthouse]

Just a little 7th quote from another forum before they booted him off :

If anyone wants some light relief then you could always browse through his previous rants

http://www.moneytec.com/forums/f104/general-discussion-7thsignaltrader-18636/page5.html
Quote :

Better yet, why not ask the Administrator of this board to simple say whether or not the two come from different IP addresses and different subnet masks. You do understand how networks work don’t you, JC Bad? How do we know that you are not posting under multiple id on this forum?

I’ve used Tradevector for YEARS. I’ve used StealthTrader for YEARS. I’ve used the ID name that was equal to the Prototype System Name in each new generation of the system. The system is now in its 5th Generation of Code. Therefore, genius, how many ID do you think I would have, at least? Therefore, I’ve used a minimum of five (5) different ID over the course of 6 years.