Analysis and Trading based on Envelopes, Waves, Cycles

Out of curiosity, who is WRandall?

An exêrt on Numerical Analysis on the Sentient Trader Discor group

Thanks

BTCUSD 1 mn

Focal Points

BTCUSD 1 mn

Sinewave

BTCUSD 1 mn

as the various noisemakers mainly do not trade they would not explain you that the Quadrilateral is a "trending tool" working in specific conditions

I am not "well versed " in Jenkins methodology. I occasionaly use 2 tools or methodology : the Quadrilateral and the Time Conversion Bar (TCB).

All that very occasionally - mainly to shut the big mouth(s) of the guys writing I am a Jenkins "hater" (see the Jenkins sub-discords here)

whenever I posted on here, rellik would chime in about how it didn't work. Much like parisboy does with Jenkins.

I have neither written such thing nor thought such a thing. about Jenkins.

Most of the time I criticized strongly Jenkins "followers" "believers" "propagandists" etc who are unable to post charts explained with the detailed methodology about how to build it and how to use it for ftrading and / or forecasting.

No guy has ever done that on the subdiscord about Jenkins Charts here.

as for Jenkins I remind you that I have posted , on Diamond Miner thread on FF , all the PDF books of Jenkins I had at the exception of the last astro ones I had not.

At the exception of Swede (Ingvar) I never saw anybody publicly and PERSISTENLY using Jenkins tools to trade. on FF or elsewhere else.

I have NO INTEREST in closet billionnaires or private Jenkins students having signed a NDA coming here or on other website to explain me how great Jenkins is in his private teaching(s) because it is of no practical use for me.

Anyway I am a total unbeliever on the usefulness of numerical analysis at least for trading :

I know. I know ! Let's be clear all what you post guys on numerical analysis is very stimulating for the brain.

But I always smile when I see you playing the game " my filter filters better and whiter than yours"

I will come back with more details soon with more incorrect observations

Why is "numerical" analysis unuseful in Cyclic Analysis ?

Hurst has made the demonstration in Profit Magic.

First good old Jim teach us to build Envelopes _ Jim wrote something like "Envelopes are essential for "observational analysis" .

Then good old Jim shows us how to detect cycle(s) in Price Action using the Envelopes he taught us to build (per hand).

Then good old Jim taught us to trade Price Action using these Envelopes : with VTL, Action signals, Nest of Lows, Centered Moving Averages intersection etc.

Then suddenly at the end of the book good old Jim shows us in an Appendix, coming from nowhere a numerical analysis and says " Hi guys the X weeks Cycles and the Z days cycle you found with your eyes using your Envelopes, I got something very close of your results using Fourier analysis (what is it ?), Spectral Analysis (what do you say) with my big computer you can not use ! Is not it great guys !

Hurst's "principles" comes entirely from Dewey and the people of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles.

They are not carved in stone , these "Principles" are just guidelines useful for understanding and analyzing Price Action.

There are tons of "Nominal Models".

Everyone can have his own model, if he likes it

The principle of variation allows you to use almost whatever model you prefer as long this model is in touch with reality.

The only 2 "non-negiotiable" "Hurst Principles" are : The Summation principle and the Variation principle

Compounding Cycles or Waves a soon as 1950 (Principle of Summation)

Hurst made a synthesis and vulgarized Dewey's and FSC ideas -

Nominal Model,
2 and 3 relationship between Cycles,
Strength Proportionality,
Synchronicity (Synchrony),
Variation (Audit),
Summation,
Commonality.

All that is in Cycles Magazine as soon as 1950-1955.

The real specificity of Hurst is that he gave us Trading Tools based on "Cyclic Principle to make money with ;

Cycles (Waves) -
Envelopes,
Centered Moving Averages Crossings,
Valid Trend Lines,
Future Line of Demarcation.

Fact is Dewey refers to Kitchin and 1923.

Dewey and the FSC are always ambiguous about "cycles". the general idea is "we study the existence of Cycles in every aspect of human life".

But nobody (outside universities) is willing to pay for cycles in amibia reproduction or lynx sexual life" .

Everybody is ok about meteorological researches and weather or climate cycles.

But Dewey will acknowledged in a paper that 95% of the readers are interested in stock market only and 5 % on economic cycle ( production processes, sales etc)

Cycles Magazine - January 1958 - The "thumbing " method acccording to Edward Dewey

When I read that I am glad to stick to Hurst's Two Fingers method "robust, but not bad !"