How would I do that if I couldn't recognize...
Please proof that there is no other way finding out.
Please provide a complete account of all incidents, where your method gave you the right indications, and all the incidents were your method led you astray.
Unless you can do so, the conclusion is: your "method" doesn't exist.
this is garbage -- really.
...
so go home and buy a lottery ticket. and for the last time, if you have something to say like "TA is bunk" or "this thread is garbage", keep in mind that you're doing exactly what you claim i am -- making groundless assertions.
Arepo, the way you behave makes you look like an dishonest manipulator.You constantly turn and distort other peoples arguments, you create huge claims, and when challenged for a real proof, you walk away and start further threads.
if there are no 'VERIFIABLE METHODS WHICH YIELD POSITIVE RESULTS AT A RATE BETTER THAN CHANCE" than how can anyone be a 'skilled' trader? what does that even mean?
you are bending and derailing the argument.
I demanded proof that a proposed method actually yields results.
I demanded proof that the terms and proceedings are actually
necessary to arrive at certain conclusions.
And you: you say "if there are no verifiable methods..."
This is how a manipulator proceeds.Price movements are stochastic, meaning, like in quantum physics, they are impossible to predict with 100% accuracy.
...
Fortunately, although price movements are stochastic, they do exhibit time-dependent autocorrelations. This just means that there are deterministic rules in play as well, whose influence is visible through self-similar patterns.
This is a bold statement. You claim
that you can show deterministic rules at work below a seemingly random surface.
Yet in any case where your statements were challenged in the last weeks, you were not able to show an objective rule, law, or otherwise verifiable formula, method or even just empirical proof.
When pressed by critics, you always retract to statements like "it needs to be confirmed by later price movement". Or "this thread was not intended to be predictive"
I'll take an example right from this thread.
You claim to show a causal nexus, but actually you only show a mental projection in hindsight.
C tests the critical resistance.(1) It is the interesting 'last ditch effort' of the suppressed upwards correction.(2) It is referred to as a "breakout" both because it breaks out of the tightening range, but also because the candle has a suddenly large volume in stark contrast to the waning volume inside the formation. This fully confirms the pattern.(3) This candle generally(3) reaches only as high as the highest point on the wide back-end of the triangle(3) (in this picture it only reaches halfway), but is a nasty bulltrap* because it signals the failure of the price to overcome the resistance (white line near C) which the price was consolidating against. This is followed by the continuation of the trend, D.
*Why(4) does this occur? Why not an immediate downside breakout into the trend continuation (4)? The 'signal' explanation (above) is decent in terms of basic understanding, but is not complete. In my physics model(5), it is equivalent to momentum. In order to jump, one needs to push against the floor with a force equal and opposite(5). In a way, the price is 'bouncing off of a ceiling' as opposed to 'jumping', where the price pushes against the critical resistance to gain enough momentum to continue the downward motion(6).
(1) this can not be concluded from the pattern you see in the graph. You need to look at the actual orders, and watch the actual deals going on in order to determine (a) if there was actually a resistance, (b) the resistance was the same which couldn't overcome by the first upward oscillation and (c) there are no further resistances, so you could call it rightfully the critical resistance.
(2) You can only conclude this in hindsight. We agree that there was a fluctuation in volume, after the downward movement ended. But when the volume gets up again, the movement can indeed overcome several levels of resistance. Or it can move sidewards between the various resistance levels. Or a huge wall just gets pulled away and this prompts new market action.
(3) Here you claim a generality which objectively doesn't exist. Only in hindsight, when you deliberately pick a consolidation break between several downward legs as an example, you make it look coherent as if there was a uniform and general causal structure behind the price movement. But you omit the cases (a) where you could see a triangle pattern, but no bull trap and no 'last ditch effort', and no continued downward move followed, and (b) you omit the cases where in a similar constellation there was a fluctuation in volume but no clearly shaped visible pattern formed before onset of the next market action.
(4) to stress this point: here you give the impression that you can provide a reason behind the observable action. You claim to have a better explanation than just a "signal" derived from watching the chart, using notions like "resistance", "trend", "consolidation".
(5) the model of classical mechanics indeed shows the virtues of a rational model. It is based on well defined axioms. And you can undoubtedly name the conditions when it is applicable and when not (preservation of momentum). The entities and forces detailed by this model can be shown to exist at the time the observed action actually takes place. Plus, this physical process has indeed a common causal nexus. It is one process, a transport of energy and momentum
(6) but what you provide here as an "physical model" of price action is borderline ridiculous. (not to mention that you don't define your terms and that you don't specify the conditions when this model can not be applied). At the time, when the real market action takes place, there is no generic common reason behind the upwards movement and the downwards movement. Other than the fundamental situation in any market that some people want to buy and some want to sell. That some people want the price to go up and others want it to go down. You can not claim in general that the momentum of the upwards movement causes the momentum of the downward movement. (And if you insisted on this claim, I would demand a first class proof)
There might indeed be a set of typical mass psychological situations, like people being nervous after a crash and anxiously watching the further movement to get an indication. But the way you are presenting your analysis here is not helpful to pinpoint such a situation.
- (a) the pattern you present is formulated way too much generic and especially omits the specifics of the market and the current situation
- (b) the pattern can only be construed reliably in hindsight, when the further action is already revealed ("confirmed" as you like to put it)
- (c) the pattern is not necessary to determine a specific mass psychological situation, e.g. a crash. The fact that the price did not turn round but continue into a second leg down can be determined directly from the data available when the "confirmation" of the pattern has happened.
