Advanced Structured Forex Trading

[fxmarkets]

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?

hmmm see the thinking but say we know that this is now a probable normal thing to anticipate, ie growth. Can we not bet on the anticipation at point of creation, and watch the growth or trend unwind. Based on an/or many an observation of original historical growth initially yes.... but now we know that we dont need history to reveal itself first do we, from now on ?

also could the father not of observed others growing not of his own kin and bet that because of what he'd seen or observed that the probabality that his own would grow was not unreasoanble to wager, more likely who would take his bet?

how many births have we observed in the market already ?

 

[fxmarkets]

Whats going on up there ?

and thinking on, its no good waiting till little johnny is decked out in blazer and cap its all in the price, no we perhaps need to consider assuming a wager when we hear the bed springs creaking. 😱

fx.

 

[rols]

Page Two of Two:



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?)




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




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!




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.



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!



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.

I am intrigued so may I beg your indulgence?
(i) Why the need to so vigorously defend yourself? A defense of the indefensable perhaps?
(ii) Have you discovered the ability to freeze time? To me it seems the only explanation of where you find the hours to compose and write these monolithic posts.
(iii) With the greatest of respect. Have you considered becoming an author of science fiction?

 

[trendie]

there is always the problem of using analogies.

some people get so enamoured with the analogy, they lose sight of the original reason.

Identifying the markets to flying a plane is fine, upto a point. But dont forget, youre trading the markets, not planes.

Identifying the markets to nuclear-paricles is fine (electron-shells). here again, dont confuse the fact that youre trading the markets, not particles. ( anyway, doesnt the Hesinenberg Uncertainty Principle say that you can know the position, OR the velocity of a particle, and NOT BOTH. Maybe 7th can pick the right price, but not direction? Or he gets the direction right, but gets a "sub-optimal" price 🙂 )

Anyway, to fixate too much on representations to the detriment of the reality, is putting the anal into analogy.

And invoking quotes from famous scientists and philosophers, such as from Einstein, Hawking, Bertrand Russell, to shore up a weak concept, doesnt strengthen the weak concept.

As Wittgenstein once said, "You are out of your freakin' tree, man".

 

[Brabed]

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.

I usually just read these threads of 7th's and rarely chime in unless asking a question of 7th. You see, I am actually committed to trading and learning to be a better trader, rather than flinging poo at someone in a message board. I also don't take offense of being labelled the 'sad soul', so don't take this as a defensive position.

Hey, thanks for looking out for me and the other 'sad souls' suggesting Skype, really, thanks. I mean I never would have thought of that and, well, the fact that that's how you communicate to your fellow traders, well, that's all the feedback I need. What do you and your buddies discuss on Skype? Do you actually discuss trading or do you just jibber jabber about how enraged you are that someone is more intelligent than you. Do you discuss different poop flinging methods?

Anyway, thanks again for looking out for me. I assure you, me and my 'sad soul' friends are doing just fine. I'll leave you now, I know you're busy crapping in your hand, getting ready for the next go 'round.

 

[npn]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
--Mahatma Gandhi

 

[wasp]

Long way to go yet, I'm still not past the laughing stage!

 

[7thSignalTrader]

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

It was YOU who initiated this with your post #323 where you claim to know very little about the trading system that this thread is all about and where you also claim to “know me personally” – which was then and is now a complete lie. I don’t know you and you don’t know me or the horse I road in on and never have – nor will you, most likely. So, try asking yourself what your reply has to do with the “real business of trading”. Try that one on for size and see if it fits your agenda.

1. You have too much time on your hands.

You’ve finally got one right. I’ve worked my butt off to get to the point where I call the shots on my time. No one calls my time, but me. I’ve earned that right by removing myself from the corporate scene through diligence and extremely hard work. So, congratulations – you amusingly enough got one right.

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

What is “intelligence”? Can you answer that question? I’ve flown a total of 38 combat sorties in some of the most sophisticated aircraft the world has ever known and I’ve flown those missions with people who I thought were a billion times smarter than myself (and I’ve often told them so). So, I don’t see myself as erudite. Rather, extremely committed to the concept of UNDERSTANDING that which I “need to know”.

It is all about “need to know” in my world. When you have the “need” – you will find a way to “know”. Most people on this planet are smarter than I am – I just work extremely hard at those things I “need to know” – when I need to know them. Intelligence has little to do with it – that’s a cop out. Everybody, short of some chemical imbalance in the brain (a physical defect), is intelligent and most people can (when called upon) demonstrate way above average intelligence.

The problem with people can be summed up in one word: Motivation. Give someone the proper motivation and they will find themselves doing things that others might think would require “above average intelligence” – not realizing that they had that capability inside them all along.

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.

Being ignorant and not capable of admitting it is likewise a pastime of wayward fools. You continually make declarative statements while offering not one shred of evidence that you can actually back them up. Once again, you call your own credibility into question.

In order to prove what you say, you will need to show where a “new term” has been created for “basic trading set-ups” in this system. Define and outline each new term that was created and its associated basic trading set-up. If you cannot do this, then it will only be more proof of your arrogance and ignorance as you pretend to know something that you don’t about this system.

In order for you to be able to prove this, you will have to know something about this system. Now, prove that you have the slightest clue about what you speak by showing exactly which “new terms” were created and how they directly apply to this trading system. Anything less than this will prove my point about why I keep you off the Banned/Troll list.

LOL- you should really start to think before you type – you continually type yourself into deeper holes from which you have no recovery. This only one of many examples that I have highlighted about people like you who like to pretend they know what this system is all about without having the slightest clue.

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.

This is the kind of useless, pointless, non-sequitur, non-responsive insertions that are a hallmark of your posts on this forum. This has been asked and answered almost 4 months ago with your post #3 in this thread and my reply post #7 in this thread. So, almost 400 posts later (lol) in an attempt to avoid the questions put to you in my last reply regarding your reply on “trends”, you ask a question you have already asked and that was already answered and you do it in a futile attempt to prove what – exactly?

You really, really need read, think and ponder your words just a bit before you type. You are being caught here on every single attempt to prevaricate on the questions put to you that you have failed miserably to answer with any coherence or congruency whatsoever. Every single word that you have posted in this thread has been irrelevant, off-topic (excluding your attempt to prove that one can actually trade a trend) and holistically non-sequitur at the core.

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

The much better question would be, why are you still prevaricating, avoiding the questions put to you in reply to your thesis on trading trends (a physical impossibility), procrastinating, running and hiding behind non-sequitur after non-sequitur and attempting to inject nothingness as a strategic method to wade your way out of these deeper waters?

That’s the better question. LOL!

Furthermore, how many “nicks” do you have? How many have you used in various online forums? How many times have you logged on to this forum using another nick? You have thousands of posts (a “Legend”) on this forum – most of them are just like this – pointless, aimless and without regard for truth. Anybody can accumulate thousands of pointless posts and then attempt to pass that off as “trader knowledge”.

The number of posts means nothing – the content of those posts means everything. I’ve made just over 216 posts on this forum. What I’ve posted in those 216 posts contains infinitely more valuable information than the thousands that you have posted combined! The problem with guys like you is that you are too blind to recognize it.

Recall how this got started, now? YOU interrupted with YOUR silly, argumentative style and YOUR usual abundance of arrogance. Read some of your replies to people, guy. I’m not the only detecting the arrogance in your replies to people. You come off like some Mother Hen around here. Adults are on this board and no one needs your Mother Hen protection. If you don’t like something that somebody has posted, instead of posting a counter-argument intelligently, coherently, with details, technical facts and reasons that make your argument more sound – you monopolize a thread (that’s how you garnered the several thousand posts you now have – I’ve read MANY of them), start labeling people, inject pointless and useless drivel, while pretending to be “in the know” and “helpful”.

Do you realize that attitudes like yours in the online trading world are a dime a dozen? Anything you don’t understand, can’t see, don’t comprehend, can’t recognize, or otherwise can’t come to grips with (for whatever reasons) you attempt to trash.

The huge problem for you here is that you don’t know what you are doing here – lol. That’s makes trashing it a very difficult mission for you to accomplish.

Now, you have failed to answer one single relevant question regarding one’s ability to “trade a trend” as they were detailed for you in a reply to your initial reply. So, here’s a bit of advice for you and all the other people like you: Get a life and get out of this thread unless you have something relevant, on-topic, technically oriented and specifically geared towards the nature, content and purpose of this thread.

Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your silliness and youthful brilliance.

Understood? You are not yet on the Banned/Troll list - but you are getting very close. (unbelievable - )

 

[7thSignalTrader]

7thSignalTrader,

Yes, that did help in further understanding your approach.

Cool beans.

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.

It sure started off fairly basic a few years ago – but in the end (I think I’m at the very end) the complexity levels increased with the additional metadata being pulled into service. All the metadata had to be fully integrated and that is where the major tweaking began and exists to this day. When creating something from scratch, you have the option of growing the system in a number of different directions depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

Remember, mine was geometric growth of capital over the shortest possible time-frame. That by definition meant that day-to-day accuracy had to go above 90% and remain at or above that level consistently. This system has not seen anything less than 91.12% day-to-day accuracy (as defined earlier) since 2004, in production mode. Test mode has dropped off down to 86.87%, which is what’s suppose to happen when you are testing. That’s how you find the bugs in any new code segments.

So, the complexity is there now – but in the beginning, I truly had no idea just how big/large/complex this system would become. You can’t possibly know in the beginning when doing ground-up pure research.

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?

Well – that got my attention! I’d say that’s pretty cool. The NN’s that I’ve worked with in the past had very little Excel legacy integration. The vendors that I’ve worked with in the past, all felt that their platform should be the place for all calculations and the formatting of the data would be a strict back-end RDBMS matter making Excel moot down the line. However, what they later realized is that in the corporate world, there are people that literally grew-up on Excel and would ultimately find a way to use it as often as possible even though Excel’s capability along NN lines is basically non-existent – other than being a great platform for building new algorithms.

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!

Meaning – you use a different FIFO method for LocBind? I’m not clear on this one? Come again…

Do you know that there are two distinct beliefs regarding whether the data does incorporate news?

Yes – its become a “spiritual” thing with some people – almost religious in tone – LOL! It is the old “Chicken –vs- Egg” question. My vote is for the “Chicken”, but in my research I’ve found that “data” has a distinct fingerprint depending on which financial market you are talking about. There are more than just news vectors as well in the data – there are also the structural manipulation vectors that get mixed into the technical and fundamental vectors. You can see this in the stock market TCDs more than you can FX data – but it does exist in FX data, too. Once you see enough TCD data, you can visually detect these vectors to some degree – more so in the equity markets, however.

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!

Interesting idea! I use concepts from the electrical engineering discipline and a few other technical disciplines to create “Dampers”, “Switches”, “Relays”, “Gates”, “Bridges”, “Transformers”, etc. They all fit under the system heading of “Signal Modifier” and I have modifiers for different purposes at different levels throughout the entire system. That’s where a lot of the complexity in the system comes from. Sometimes, I need the system to retard or slow down the signal output from a specific cluster or module. That’s when I use a Modifier. Or, there are other times when I need to increase the signal output from a specific cluster using a Modifier of some sort. Most of them are one-off designs as they are primarily purpose built items that act as a bridge between signal clusters that have output that won’t sync-up on their own.

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.

Exactly! That kind of coding takes a very long time to tweak-out to optimal levels given all the variables involved and depending on how accurate you want the system to be. But, there is certainly a use for such a lagging input that got triggered at some point in the past. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish in terms of optimal pip capture per trade, or how you are trying to manage the inherent risk of long-term trades which I really dislike because they are overly exposed to adverse news vectors which can easily reset the entire trade and push it into recovery mode, even though you previous had a very nice profit.

That is why I am a pure Day Trader – until I can tweak the long-term components of the system. And, that won’t be fully possible until I have enough data on how “adverse news” impacts super long range TCDs. So, I can appreciate what you are talking about here!

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!

True – there are many different ways to skin a cat. Mine is with the TCD (along with some other more advanced delta concepts not for public consumption). The TCD is quit simple in construct. But, trying to harness one on a consistent basis really does require some creative thinking. That line of creative thinking can take on many forms – it really all depends on what the Trader is attempting to do in the business.

People seeking 4,000 pip moves can use TCDs. People seeking 7 pip moves can use TCDs. The beautiful thing is that the modification of the TCD for BOTH purposes will vary depending on “need”, but the underlying TCD will always remain the same.

There everywhere – and they are everywhere at the exact “same” time. That’s what makes them so darn beautiful! 😉

 

[7thSignalTrader]

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.

At a very basic level – yes, that’s it.

Now, what you have to always keep in mind is which TCD are you using as input for your trade signal. You will also need to modify that statement this way:

New Projected TCD Initiation = Subordinate TCD at Minimums

That is the baseline set-up for the “next” TCD which is always a “Projection”. Remember, one cannot trade what is already in the past. So, that “New” TCD is only a “Projection”. It is a projection of what the Price Structure needs to look like at the close of the “next” trading session, in order for the Price Structure to be maintained. Whether or not that particular Price Structure is maintained or not is dependent upon the extend to which the previous Subordinate TCD has reached its Minimums AND the condition or state of the larger TCD structures above the one you are generating a signal for.

So, one must always keep in mind (better yet – Code it!) what the larger scale TCD structures are doing at precisely the time your entry/exit signal is being generated at the lower level (assuming you are a Day Trader). This is one of the most important things for you to remember about trading TCD projections. You have to get good at interpreting the:

Leading TCD metadata (F%)
Retention TCD metadata (F%)
Projection TCD metadata (F%)
Omega-F% (in relation to Subordinate and Dominant F%’s)

(For all TCD time-frames: daily, weekly, monthly, annual and semi-annual if you have it)

Once you have the interpretation down, then you can code it. The interpretation will come through study, research and analysis of the results from your entries and exits using your various interpretations of the metadata. Remember, you are working with metadata here, not “real” market data. It is driven off of the real market data, but real market data known nothing about TCDs. You need to TCD metadata (I gave you guys all 30 baseline indicators) in order to be able to interpret it correctly and consistently.

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

Remember, the Dominant TCD is not merely the one with larger “Daily” metadata values (F%’s). The Dominant TCD is the one with larger metadata values taken from the aggregate of ALL TCDs. That includes the F%’s of the Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly TCD.

See pic of Real-Time StealthIndicator Performance F(x) cluster below. This is a small slice taken from the engine for the 6/5/06 to 6/6/06 trading session on the EURUSD.

Notice how I aggregate ALL core TCD metadata and created a Fill% Synergy and a F%SynCluster output signal using that metadata. Also, notice the Master F(x) signal cluster using the Tactical, Retention and Projection metadata values (composed of three (3) signals). I use each of these signals in different areas inside the engine, but the point of the pic is to show you the “aggregation” and “integration” of the metadata into ultimately one (1) signal for each aggregation type: F%SynCluster and Master F(x).

Hope this helps.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

TheBrambles above quote is the most illustrative of this whole thread.

TehBrambles quote is illustrative of naysayers knowing nothing and professing everything.

Dominant/subordinate = primary-trend/pullbacks etc

Wrong and not even close to being right. Dominant and Subordinate Transequential Contiguous Deltas are the things that make the so-called “trends”. They are not the historical trends – not even close. Not to mention the fact that you completely failed to give a “similarity” for Retention TCDs and Projection TCD (lol!). And, if that was not funny enough, you used the term “pullback” without having clue about what it means.

LOL – there are no such things as “pullbacks” – only the tired, old, stale and antiquated “language” used to describe market behavior due to a total lack of technical understanding about what’s going on underneath the so-called “pullback”.

Here’s an example:

1) Define pull back for us mathematically?

2) When you are done with that impossible task, please tell us how to determine the highest probability for the initiation of a “pullback”?

3) Then, tells us the most important question of all – how do you know that the “pullback” you are observing is not a “pullback”, but a complete reversal of price direction?

4) Lastly, tell us how to determine the location (price point) of the “pullback” before it happens? Or, whether or not there will even be one – before it happens? (lol!)

projection = trend ( despite the tortuous explanations to the contrary )

Wrong and Backwards. Only in the world of a “trend trader” would one think that the “trend” equals the “projection”. You could not be more wrong or more backwards even if you tried. You obviously have not even read the explanations given, because you called the “trend” the “projection”. In this system, they are the exact OPPOSITE as I have mentioned probably 1,000 times by now, LOL!

You people are amazingly simple and so incredibly arrogant. To think that you can reshape a trading technology built over six (6) years in six (6) minutes is beyond arrogance. You’ve never seen anything like this in your entire life. Yet, you know it cold after having not one single item of knowledge under your belt. Funny! No – Stupendously and outrageously funn!

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

If you only know how silly this statement was, you would not have written it so blatantly and so openly. Hilarious! As if you just “uncovered” some deep, dark secret. Of course, mean reversion = equilibrium. We all learned that in pre-school! That’s nothing new or revealing.

What’s new AND revealing is: Reversion to the mean of WHAT? That, “what” is what has you so twisted even though I’ve given the answer on this forum and in this thread at least a hundred times already. That fact that you are unable to figure it out after so much has been written on it here, is mind-blowing.

You basically say that a Dog barks and a Cat meows and that is supposed to serve as “insight” into this technology – LOL! If I had said that TCDs tend to revert to the mean, that would have been one and the same thing and you would have had nothing to post. But, because I used to phrase “equilibrium”, you broke out the Champaign bottles as you thought you saw some similarity that was mere distinction without a difference.

Get a clue. You come in here posing as somebody who “understands” what’s being said and only managed to make yourself look foolish. You’ve got every comparison dead wrong and yet, you just know that you are right without asking one single question about the things you could not possibly know. That signal fact says just about everything related to your motive, here.

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

Clearly you have no clue. Keep guessing – since you do not know how to ask proper questions about topic you don’t fully understand.

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.

That is the typical naysayer trying his best to twist the facts to suit his own clueless agenda. Try going back and reading TheBramble’s very first post in this thread. He did not ask a question relevant to the thread, he immediately began trash-talk (as he typically does) inside a thread of someone he has no clue about. He asked NOT ONE relevant question (just like you right now) and he ASSUMED knowledge that he could not possibly have while POSING to be partial minded, yet at the very same time claiming both me and the system to “no be real” (just like you are right now).

Now, how arrogant is that? Naysayers are some of the saddest people on the face of the planet. They can’t get beyond their own egos long enough to admit: “Hey – I just don’t know” – and ask some relevant questions in fear that they just might bet educated.

I see parallels between 7th and Socrates:

I see clear parallels between you and every other trash-talking naysayer taking up residency on every trading board in the entire universe.

1) You assume yourselves into oblivion not knowing anything about the details, facts, substance or material being discussed.

2) You enter threads, realize the discussion is over your head and quickly move to trash the thread with off-topic, nonsensical garbage that wasted my time and the precious times of others actually learning something as I correct your trash with facts and watch you squirm as you fail to respond “in kind” with FACTS.

3) You ultimate make some silly comparison between the thread that you are currently trashing with another thread that you previously trashed and then you run away never proving anything you’ve said pretending all the while that you’ve actually done something of value for the forum as you fake “not watching the thread” as you go on your merry way.

4) You completely ignore any trades posted or the success of those trades and you always claim that you can’t see the trades even though anyone one with at least one eye and half a brain could see them sitting inside this thread for the entire free world to see.

5) And, you always project your total arrogance by claiming to know me, this system, how it was built, how it works and why it is a recreation of something old, not realizing just how ludicrous and lame your totally misguided comments land hollow points.

6) You create fictional characters and plug them into this thread as though they have some relevance here and as though they prove something that only your screwed up ulterior motive would appreciate.

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

Only a total, clueless naysayer would ever think that he was not capable of original thought. This is the absolute perfect example post from a total clueless naysayer. One who frowns upon original thought. One who has most probably not had a single original through move though his head since his birth into this world and who can do nothing but project that same level of useless thinking into every situation in life they come up with. Just because you failed to have an original thought flow through your mind in the past quarter century, does not limit someone else’s ability to possess one or two in their lifetime. My goodness – how narrow minded could one possibly be.

both make references to this knowledge, but are unwilling to declare what it is;

So, because one is not willing to just hand over everything to you on a silver platter, it just can’t be original, or real? That’s nuts. Who on earth would work their butt off for six (6), lose more than $15,000.00 as part of their “education” in the trading business fooling around with stock options, work sometimes 36 hours a day for prolonged periods of time honing their skill, educating themselves and developing creative concepts of a technical nature for trading above the 93% accuracy level on a daily basis and then just turn around and hand it over to a rude, arrogant, condescending, hostile flagrant such as the naysayer that you clear are?

Who on earth would do that? Not this fool! LOL! I talk about what I “choose” to talk about and when a question is asked that I “choose” not to discuss I let people know right up front that such an item is off limits. If you had eyes to see and ears to hear, you would have realized that what I have “chosen” to discuss thus far and shared with people for quite some time now, would be enough to boost your trading accuracy on a DAILY basis far beyond where you are today.

I know what the average trader is doing today. I know they are barely seeing 63% precision/accuracy on a DAILY basis and I know that 63% DAILY is pushing the far upper regions of the general trading population as a whole. After talking with people from around the world about their own trading success for six (6) years, I know that the average “trend trader” is not seeing 63% accuracy on a DAILY basis.

So, the very fact that I’m trading at 93+% accuracy on a Daily basis and have been proving it in trade journals across the net for YEARS just about says it all. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change or alter those solid facts no matter how hard you try – LOL! 😉

( 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 )

So, let me get this straight, here. One is supposed to stop working, tweaking, improving and optimizing their trading technology simply because they’ve been working on it for six (6) years? That comment right there, speaks VOLUMES about the difference between what I do and what the average “trend trader” does.

The typical “trend trader” does not get this stuff because their minds are so incapable of “seeing beyond the trend”. This system goes INSIDE the so-called “trend” and explores it. This systems runs inside the very thing that you attempt to trade. About 50% of the time, by the time you enter or exit your trade, I’m already on the opposite side of the so-called “trend” – typically long before you even know that the “trend” has reversed.

You can’t get to that level of acuity without spending a tremendous amount of time tweaking and optimizing a Predictive Model Trading Technology. If you think that you are going to understand this overnight, build one overnight, or tear this one down overnight, you are spitting in the wind and doing so blindly at the same time. This is Predictive Model Trading – NOT – “Trend Trading”. You cannot trade that which does not exist and I’ve already demonstrated that fact from about 5 different approaches with TheBramble.

You can guess, enter a trade where it moved with the “historical trend”, make some money (maybe 63% of the time on a Daily basis – but I seriously doubt it) and kid yourself into thinking that you actually “traded a trend” to that end. But, rest assured, all you did is all you can ever do in this business and that is called “trading a projection” – not a “trend”.

You are a predictive model trader and you don’t even know it! That is what I find extremely funny. You don’t have a predictive model that is coded like this one is and that makes you think that you are not a predictive model trader – LOL! All the while, you are completely blind to the fact that predictive model trading in an UN-Coded form is STILL predictive model trading whether you like it or not, or whether you know it or not.

You DO trade a “black box”. Yours just happens to be UN-Coded and you don’t even know it. Now, just how humorous is that? 😉

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

This is some of the most free wielding pseudo-psychological twisted gibberish that a naysayer typically puts forth. I’ve been online for years working WITH people and sharing “some” of these new ideas, not fighting with them. Take CLEAR note of the tone and tenor of the reply to those that as real questions about the concepts that I’ve shared here. Do you note any difference?

“Challenge”? What challenge? Where have you or any other naysayer on the planet “challenged” me or anyone else in this thread regarding the concepts discussed in this thread? You would be a fool to challenge someone on their turf, when you don’t know anything about what is being discussed on that turf. Others ask very intelligent questions and that is because they have been paying ATTENTION and the “get” the basic concepts enough to at least be able to dialog with me about them.

On the other hand, you typical naysayers NEVER ask relevant questions, NEVER post anything on-topic or coherent to any of the technical dialog being discussed. All you typical naysayers will EVER do is create straw men and them proceed to know them down as though you’ve just struck gold in the Northern hills of California. When you are ready to challenge someone on this level, post something that actually resembles a “challenge” and see what happens.

both fail to accept their own limitations, and descend into condescension to the other party.

This is pretty much the EXACT mirror image of yourself and other naysayers like you. You are so far removed from what’s going on here and you have so many “bogymen” running around in your head seeing things are not there, hearing things that are not there and creating delusional experiences that only naysayers can relate to, that I truly feel sorry for you.

You don’t outline what “limitations” you see. You use the word “limitations” as though it actually has meaning to a thread like this without realizing just how far off-base you are. And, every post made by you naysayers has been the initiation of condescension to the Nth degree and yet you have the twisted mindset that allows you to claim that someone else was being “condescending” with you.

You just don’t get it - do you?

( 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.[/

Once again, having not one clue about how or why the concept of an electron applies to “this” trading system, you use it in a “condescending” way because you do not comprehend ether electrons OR this system and then you sign off with the typical: “Oh, I find this thread funny” run-away and hide trash that most naysayers sign off with.

Look, Naysayer/Trendie:

Here’s the bottom line. You don’t get it and you are ego-puffed and arrogant about that fact. For your sake, get over it, get a life and by all means get a clue. Nothing you have posted here has made you any wiser about this system, its technology or the designer of it. You have not made yourself any better a trader for your rant, here. You have not improved your trading accuracy. You have not increased your bank account and you have not done anything to improve your position as a Trader, by your rant here.

You are a typical naysayer who can’t see what’s being discussed you are too business trying to prove that you know more about the creation than the creator himself. That is the apex of arrogance and you have displayed that degree of skill without flaw, here. Now, pat yourself on the back as you have once again demonstrated just how narrow minded and completely off-base you are “in this thread”.

But, here is the dirty little secret about ALL naysayers:

If you seriously thought this thread was a waste of your time – you would not be reading it!

So, much for integrity, huh? 😉

 

[7thSignalTrader]

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 ? ....

Unbelievable. You just can't make this stuff up folks. 😱

 

[npn]

Meaning – you use a different FIFO method for LocBind? I’m not clear on this one? Come again…

Well, for a long time I thought FIFO applied for Highs and Lows. However simple SQL query showed that that’s only the case about 65% of the time. I thought FIFO meant for example LHHL. I only worked for short period (no longer than 4 weeks full time) on this using NNs and one of my models did come to about 80% on the validating data set. However, when I tested the test set, it showed the expected 65%. It turned out that my validating set (of 200 or so days) had coincidently LHHL patterns the majority of the time. So I left it open-ended: I realized that FIFO in LocBind applies for TCDs and not for Highs and Lows (with some exception). Not only, but also I realized that LHHL patterns would I believe I know now how to format the data for proper training. At the end of the day though, I have some useful understanding of how and when LocBind works.

I do have a question for you, if you don’t mind: Can you say that LocBind works 100% with the exception of news and when it’s influenced by a larger time frame LocBind?

Yes – its become a “spiritual” thing with some people – almost religious in tone – LOL! It is the old “Chicken –vs- Egg” question. My vote is for the “Chicken”, but in my research I’ve found that “data” has a distinct fingerprint depending on which financial market you are talking about.

Actually neither came first; they were both result of something else. LOL This reminded me of a cool book about Artificial Intelligence and NNs, which is sort of entry level for someone interested in those two topics, mostly entertaining. ISBN: 1558607838 But I see your point on the second part.

npn

 

[7thSignalTrader]

hmmm see the thinking…

Ok – let’s verify that fact.

but say we know that this is now a probable normal thing to anticipate, ie growth.

Called a Probability Statement in this system and it is perfectly the right approach under this paradigm of trading. So, you are moving in the right direction, here.

Can we not bet on the anticipation at point of creation, and watch the growth or trend unwind.

By George he’s got it! Can “we not bet on the anticipation”…., is the perfect language to use that describes exactly what his Father would have by necessity needed to do in order to engage his friends (the market) on the question of whether or not his son (TheBramble) would ”continue” to grow in the same direction as his historical growth trend.

That is precisely correct both physically AND logically.

Based on an/or many an observation of original historical growth initially yes.... but now we know that we dont need history to reveal itself first do we, from now on ?

I just heard the sound of a 30 car pile-up in my head when you wrote that! Here is exactly what you are saying:

a) We can observe his historical growth pattern.
b) We use that historical growth pattern to place the bet.
c) We then no longer need that same factor of the equation that lead to our knowledge of where to place the bet.

This won’t work. Not physically or logically. It cannot work. Here’s why. Simply set: Bet = Historical Trend Observed + Executing the Bet.

That’s: Bet = a +b (taken from above)

Now, remove “b” from the equation. What are you left with? This should be self explanatory from this point forward.

also could the father not of observed others growing not of his own kin and bet that because of what he'd seen or observed that the probabality that his own would grow was not unreasoanble to wager, more likely who would take his bet?

Could his father have observed his son’s neighborhood friends grow from age 5 to age 15, never having seen his own son grow historically and place a bet that his own son would follow suit and grow just like his friends did? Of course, his father could do that – but that has nothing to do with the “historical trend” of his own son. By using this example, you’ve just made the problem of proving that his father could bet the “historical growth trend” of his own son, even more impossibly difficult!

Look, if he can’t even observe his own son’s “historical trend”, then game over! Because he has far less ability to “trade that which he cannot see” – and – he had no chance at all of trading that which “could see” in the form of his son’s “historical trend”. So, you just compounded your difficulty, here.

The similarity would be in you simply looking at (observing) the “historical trends” of GBPJPY, EURGBP, GBPCHF and AUDJPY, then going ahead and executing a trade using EURUSD because you thought that it was reasonable that since the other four (4) pairs had “historical trends”, that your trade would move in the same direction as the “historical trends” of these four (4) (“not of his own kin) pairs.

Not only will this not work logically or physically – but it really would make no sense at all to trade that way.

Even if you change the four (4) pairs such that either the base or counter currency was the USD, you could see the “historical trend” of the USD, but not the EUR – but you would still be attempting to trade the EURUSD based on behavior of the “historical trend” of four (4) other currency pairs and that in and of itself simply won’t wash if your goal is to ”trade the trend of the EURUSD”.

how many births have we observed in the market already ?

If by this you mean how many births have we observed in the world and that since we don’t witness each and every birth in the world, we can place a bet that somebody (tonight at this very minute) somewhere around the world is giving birth to a new born baby, then I would take that bet with you should somebody be off their rocker enough to take the other side!

However, that is STILL placing a bet using events that have ALREADY happened. If by some bizarre chain of events, you just happened to be the only person on planet earth along with two other people – one male and one female – and they did what males and females do to “reproduce” human life for the very first time, would you then have enough information about human beings to place a bet with the other Man that a human being would be the result of his actions with the Woman in about 9 months? Of course, not.

And, why not? Simply because you needed knowledge about what to expect and there was no way on earth for you to obtain that knowledge until: It Happened! Only then would you have enough “historical trend” information about how human beings reproduce. But, of course, by then – it is already history. And, that is the point – you cannot possible trade “history”. You can only trade the projection taken from history and nothing more.

It is called “Conservation of Energy”, if you take the time to learn about it.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

(i) Why the need to so vigorously defend yourself? A defense of the indefensable perhaps?

a) What is it specifically that you find “defensive” about my posts? (be very specific)

b) Specifically, how have you determined what is “vigorous” and what is not vigorous inside a post?

c) What makes you think that I am defending myself? Point to something posted by me in defense of myself, if you can?

d) Define indefensible as it relates to whether or not a trader can “trade a trend”?

(ii) Have you discovered the ability to freeze time?

Post a link to a post of mine that leads you to believe that I’ve discovered a way to “freeze time”?

To me it seems the only explanation of where you find the hours to compose and write these monolithic posts.

90 wpm might seem like child’s play to some or freezing time to others. What’s monolithic to you, is a mere flash of time to others. What makes your length of post better, more suitable, more appropriate, more effective, more reasonable? Define the basis for what is monolithic and why shorter is better?

(iii) With the greatest of respect. Have you considered becoming an author of science fiction?

With the greatest respect, have you considered actually reading this thread and replying in like kind – that means, a technical question and/or response to the subject/topic/substance of the thread – if you can?

Here's a very relevant question for you:

Why is underachievement, laziness, narrow mindedness, simple mindedness, arrogance, delusion, stubbornness, fact twisting and the inability to admit fault and wrong doing, such an adopted set of norms by naysayers?

Just for the record: the word is spelled “indefensible” and the “a” is nowhere near the “i” on your keyboard. But, I’m sure a smart wit such as you already knew that.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Well, for a long time I thought FIFO applied for Highs and Lows. However simple SQL query showed that that’s only the case about 65% of the time.

LOL - Many traders in the FX can’t get to 65% consistently.

Using the very simplistic FIFO method, they could zap themselves up to about 65% (68.71% of the time according to my old numbers) trading accuracy. But, that is only half the story. Remember, my first rule for trading: “Preservation of Capital”. That is protocol number. So, that implies on the back-end that better than average accuracy be in play at all times.

Well, what does accuracy mean anyway? If one has a Day trade target every 24 hours of 100 pips, then most likely that person is a neophyte to the FX and greed permeates their thinking. No problem, a few years in this business will humble those outrageous expectations and doing some serious research will accelerate that process. 100 pips per “day”, is not realistic. So, accuracy therefore, is not fixed solely upon Direction.

You can boost 24 hour accuracy by improving Timing, Direction and Probability. However, by simply adjusting down the 24 hour magnitude expectation to a percentage of normal magnitude, you can at the same time boost system performance and overall accuracy long term. As long as the resulting target yields enough pips to satisfy your 24 hour revenue expectations (Daily) then who cares whether or not some trades blow the lid off the pip meter.

So, with preservation of capital being my first protocol, if all I had was FIFO (old LocBind) and I was seeing 65% - 68% consistently, that means the close price may or may not be above the open or below the open and inline with FIFO expectations. So, one way that you could boost accuracy is to use a smaller percentage of normal magnitude (Omega Abs or Omega-F%) until the accuracy of FIFO reaches a level that you desire. Now, if that results in only 10 pips per trade, then you can boost the cost basis per trade, increase the re-investment rate and the leverage per trade. 10 pips per day with the right configuration of the Revenue Model will reach geometric growth in about 28 trades. Just as an example, of course.

Remember, also that the way I manage money in my business makes the average trader want to vomit. They just can’t stomach the idea of trading between 30% to 50% cost basis. That is unfathomable to most FX traders because they cannot get beyond that 65% barrier that so many people are stuck behind. So, risking 30% to 50% cost basis “is” nuts to them and they would be right. Anyway, just an example of how to boost “daily” accuracy without ever improving your trade signal’s accuracy using FIFO and still reaching your long range financial goals. But, I digress.

I thought FIFO meant for example LHHL. I only worked for short period (no longer than 4 weeks full time) on this using NNs and one of my models did come to about 80% on the validating data set. However, when I tested the test set, it showed the expected 65%. It turned out that my validating set (of 200 or so days) had coincidently LHHL patterns the majority of the time. So I left it open-ended: I realized that FIFO in LocBind applies for TCDs and not for Highs and Lows (with some exception).

Right, because the high can come first or the low can come first depending on what the market does with price. When LocBind works well, it gives you the shape of the “next” Trajectory before it happens as you already know and it works best in flat/horizontal markets. When the Daily LocBind won’t “unlock” and roll over, it typically is due to a larger LocBindVar sitting on top of the smaller one not allowing it to unlock.

It took me a long time to figure that out – LOL! 😉 LocBind deals with the location of events that give the TCDs their structure. LocBind is “part” of the equation for the structure of TCDs, but not the be-all end-all.

Not only, but also I realized that LHHL patterns would I believe I know now how to format the data for proper training. At the end of the day though, I have some useful understanding of how and when LocBind works.

Well, the first key was to simply be aware of the indicator/variable. Now, that you are aware of it (can see it with your own eyes) the rest of the game is to find ways to modify it, tweak it and make it more visible from a “distance” so you can better use it in the larger trading system.

I do have a question for you, if you don’t mind: Can you say that LocBind works 100% with the exception of news and when it’s influenced by a larger time frame LocBind?

No - Not at all. There are thousands of indicators, signals and baseline calculations and logical wrappers (algorithms) running in real-time inside the engine of this system. To date, I have not found a single signal/indicator that is 100% accurate under any circumstances. However, I have a couple (which are completely classified as off-topic) that so far are running at between 96% to 99%. I only take the cream of the crop signals and indicators. Depending on the individual run-time (real-time) precision, the system will either use or ignore the output coming from any one signal in the MetaBrain Engine – which is basically the core engine inside the larger engine where the final throughput is decided.

When LocBind is inside a flat market, she works really well. When things get very vertical in price behavior, Daily LocBind is basically taken hostage by a larger, stronger TCD. Remember, LocBind exists inside of each bar of data: daily, weekly, monthly and annual. In the end, it all comes down to balancing the system’s variables to work in harmony and synergy with each other. That kind of balance takes a lot of time to achieve but you can design it, engineer it and build it into your system once things start to gel together.

Actually neither came first; they were both result of something else. LOL This reminded me of a cool book about Artificial Intelligence and NNs, which is sort of entry level for someone interested in those two topics, mostly entertaining. ISBN: 1558607838 But I see your point on the second part.

Yep! And, thus my dilemma. 😉

David B. Fogel, I have heard of before, but not the other author. Playing at the edge of artificial intelligence looks like an interesting read. I especially like this quote on the description that reads:

“What must it do to the human male ego to find out that the young woman who just handily won an online game of checkers is actually a sleek piece of software with no real understanding of the game's rules?”

Precisely! Sort of reminds me of online trading forums and the naysayer ego running head first into this machine, LOL. 😉 But, I digress once more, LOL!

 

[7thSignalTrader]

....of course these are all the right questions to be asking...and all do have answers ...i have just a quick simple question.....you talk about understanding the market behaviour beneath .....are you talking from a pure mathematical view point/coding?

if so.....did you originally understand the market participants first....and then code your findings?

cheers mark j

No, I did not and in hindsight (there was no way for me to fully appreciate or even understand this in the beginning six (6) years ago) I am glad that I did not bring any “baggage” along with me into the pure research phase.

Good question. There really are only two (2) types of traders in the world: those who do ground up research and those who do not. Out of that do ground up research, at some point there will be some component of that research the includes the “fundamentals”/”basics” of trading the interbank system/forex. That will include things such as learning what a counter party means and does, how some FX intermediaries use bank credit to make a market for retail traders, etc., all the way up to understanding how to break-down a major economic monthly report to find out whether or not the market cares about higher or lower core PPI numbers, etc.

There is an entire school that one can put him/her self through by simply doing enough research and finding some good sources for providing background information on various subjects that make up FX trading 101 AND the more advanced FX concepts.

However, you question is a good one not for those reasons – but because it gets to the heart of the matter and it defines why this system is unlike any other I’ve seen thus far. The question is: how did the system come about? The answer is: through pure ground-up research. Research not of conventional technical indicators (although I did study many of those before I built the system[/b]), but research into the raw market data itself.

So, this system is the purest form of pattern recognition that I’ve ever seen at the core. What makes it different is that it uses a form of Metadata in conjunction with actual market data and output from custom designed indicators, to form a decision support platform for trading. The system is based on delta patterns that run between the price points that make up the historical and real-time flow of data for the daily, weekly, monthly and now annual bars in the OHLC format.

The system is about optimizing decisions about when to enter and exit a trade based on the shape, size, location, configuration and condition of any number of particular delta patterns. In addition, there is higher level function or component of the system called the MetaBrain Engine responsible for building the final output that ultimately reaches my computer screen in the form of a visual GUI that I call the Tactical Digital Dashboard.

Taking raw data and turning it into a digital Dashboard in real-time using delta patterns. That’s in a nutshell what this system does and it was made possible through pure research of raw numeric data over a very long period of time. The rest was all about building tools to test theories as well as system component design and integration. In a very small nutshell.

 

[7thSignalTrader]

Ok - guys. I came back to do some follow-up on the questions and ended up spending time dealing with foolish people. In the future, I'll simply ignore the silly people and try to get to your questions earlier. That's all I have time for a while. I'll be split between two other projects for the next couple of weeks but will return to do some more Day trades using the updated components.

There will never come a day when I run out of new ideas and concepts to test, nor will you in the development of your system (if it is worth its weight in salt, you won’t). Lately, I've come across some new ideas that I’ve been looking at from various angles trying to understand their possible significance and potential place inside the core system. The new targeting elements seem to work like air-brakes of sorts. The price runs into a net of targets and then stalls with regularity, spools down its volatility, pivots and then begins a move in the opposite direction. Depending on where these targeting elements are located, price may either reverse or continue.

This is in addition to the current TCD based input. This is completely new to the system. Having foundational and independent confirmation of TCD behavior on a larger scale is something that I did not think I could get given the nature of TCDs themselves. So, I’m initially very happy to see the possible independent synergy between the two entirely different concepts. The new target structures seem to raise the minimum pip capture from 30 pips per trade to 50 pips per trade but some of the trades seem to extend beyond my standard 24 hour interval to 48 – 60 hours. So, adopting these new concepts could result in extended trade periods from time to time. I don’t like anything beyond 24 hours, so I’m going to have to see if the bump up to a 50 pip per trade target is worth the added exposure to possible adverse news over the long haul.

When I return, I should be able to dive into some of the Day trades using the new set-ups on a test basis and then wrap things up shortly thereafter and seal up the system finally for production mode until I can confirm anymore new concepts for the system at points down the road a bit. I’ll be back later – you can post your questions now or then – either way, I’ll get to them when I return.

Good Trading!

 

[zuke]

Bramble, Trendie, Fxm etc..I see you are still trying to explain some trading basics to this clown (a guy who told us to watch for a collapse in the EUR on 1 May and then saw a subsequent 750 RISE!)

He's not a trader, he's a fantasist..he doesn't even think about R:R and he certainly doesn't trade the market. Guys, he needs our pity and not our indulgence. Poor fella

 

[chestney]

Ok - guys. I’ll be back later – you can post your questions now or then – either way, I’ll get to them when I return.

Good Trading!

Elvis has left the building.

:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: