Funny Looking Rectangles & Useless Drivel

Well you sound like an interesting fellow. I can certainly appreciate people who have multiple interests, as I do as well.

The doctors are paying more attention to the triglyceride levels nowadays. I suffer from familial hyperlipidemia myself and the best solution? Why krill oil (Omega-3 esters...), of course. Aspirin comes from willow bark. in other words, while medicine has made great strides, it shouldn't be construed to be the end-all. nature's way is most often best, don't you think?

I am not a physician, so don't let me pretend to be. My training is in radiography, especially Magnetic Resonance Imaging. My point in bringing up the monitors was to introduce a different approach to medicine...thinking outside the box. I know that recently, they have used dogs to "smell" cancer and science has proven that detection of very minute traces of enzyme residuals or by-products of chemical reactions is quite possible.

Why not find the "scent" of a heart attack and monitor that, predict where its going and send an alert if the value is predicted to get out of range? The idea can be extrapolated to everything from proper hydration to determining pheromone levels, allowing a guy to predict the chances of getting laid at any given time.

I find you are a quite sincere person and that is something you rarely find nowadays, especially on a public forum in the 4X community! I am going to give a heavy swing at your methods and learn them cold. When you come back next year, I would like to tell you my success story.

Wish me luck!

No problem, Orly. I know that familial complications are not the same, so all the best with dealing effectively with hyperlipidemia - stay as on top of it as possible and Live Well (whole fresh foods with lots of color).

My lipid levels were too high at my last visit and my doctor wanted to initiate a pharma solution. I told her absolutely not at this time - that I would re-introduce myself to the way I used to eat (whole fresh foods with lots of color) and work my way back to running a 15 mile week. At the last visit, my numbers had begun to fall and all I changed was diet and added a work-out. Diabetes runs on both sides of my family, so I need to be extra careful.

Renal failure and dialysis three times per week (a complication from T-I) destroyed a close family member - that's when I began researching what the disease was really all about. That's when I learned that neuropathy can move to the digestive system - once there, life is amazingly harsh. Diabetes is no joke and in the United States, it is clearly an epidemic at this point with more than 50% of all Americans being potentially pre-diabetic. That's nuts. That's absolutely insane. We have a huge problem in this country with processed foods, dietary habits and a lack of physical exercise.

The sugar is the real problem. At a minimum, the body needs oxygen, sugar and fat to burn as fuel, but dietary supplies being what they are (the way we eat) we end up flooding our bodies with far too many simple sugars. When you add the complex carbohydrates to the equation, the after metabolic transformations in a sedentary individual who does not burn sufficient sugar or fat molecules (daily), is the conversion of sugar to glucose and the build-up of long term fat stores. Talk about a double whammy!

In many diets, this lifestyle is sufficient to force the pancreas into overdrive and eventually to a point where it simply cannot keep up the pace. Or, sometimes, the insulin receptors in the body's cells are simply damaged an unable to accept the insulin necessary to process the glucose (is my understanding). Sometimes, that damage is genetically keyed/triggered - or the opposite, the pancreas triggers down into lower insulin production on its own! Scary.

One could shoot dietary wise for finding and remaining in ketogenic balance, but that requires literally converting and burning all the sugar intake in a 24 hour cycle - including all glucose that ultimately comes from both simple sugars and complex carbohydrates (later in the metabolic cycle), so timing that kind of diet is critical or you end up in a hypoglycemic cycle. I talked to one doctor about this method and the response was an immediate, "don't do it." The concern was that a ketogenic diet would lead to guess what - Coronary Disease, given its relative higher fat and lower carb/sugar regimen. I don't know if the jury is still out but there are some people out there who swear by their ketogenic diet with no increase in LDL/HDL. I have not yet experimented and don't know if I will - I need to do more study.

While my family member was sick, at one point I started thinking that maybe I should have gone to medical school instead of engineering school - the human body is a very complex and interesting system. I like the metabolic system in particular and the endocrine system. I think they are fascinating biological systems. The internal chemical transformations from food and how that is then used for fueling the body are what I find most interesting.

Good planning and execution to you!

I know we are off topic but the best author I have read on this is Kurzweil. His book Transcend was written in 2009 so its a bit old now but its really interesting to see later research only confirming his earlier findings.

2009, a bit old now! You make me feel VERY old , but don't worry, great ideas are NEVER too old.

This thread just gets better and better. Thx iDub

Thank you. This is partially why I decided to use range bars. My rational, although I think it might not have scientific value, is that we are all trading from price point (entry) to price point (exit). Price appears to plays the primary role while time is secondary, so I reasoned that if I want to just see pips, I have to extract it out without distorting time too much.

You had posted about Timing, Direction, Magnitude and Probability kinda all over the place If I am correct, your definition of Magnitude is price distance between price point to price point. I recall somewhere (yet couldn't find the exact post, but I know its one of your older screennames on forexfactory) that you said that Timing, Direction and Probability can eventually fail, and Magnitude is truly king to save the day.

The more I trade, the more that I find that Magnitude leads Timing, Direction and Probability. The odd thing is that it comes around itself, in reality that we can't do without Timing, Direction and Probability, but only after Magnitude has given the lead. I can't fully explain why, perhaps its too subtle for me to describe the 'feeling' correctly.

Your hypothesis did answer questions I had in mind for some time, plus it sets in motion that I still have a lot of explore in terms of Timing, Direction, Magnitude and Probability. Just how I still think that regardless of what chart (time based or price based) is used, a full scale exploration of vectors cannot be avoided.


When I decided to tackle time, I was taken aback by the following;

1-There are too many timeframe sets to consider. e.g.
Ray Barros uses the approximate x5 rule to construct his timeframes, since we have 5 days in a week. e.g. H1, M290, D1, W1, MN1
Yet non-standard timeframes does exist and x5 rule doesn't seem to apply for all situations.
Timeframes can also be subconsciously enforced by trading software companies. I've always asked myself why MT4 uses M1, M5, M15, M30, H1...etc, which doesn't obey the x5 rule Barros has.

There are so many timeframe sets to explore that I have no idea where to start. Therefore, what I've tried to do is to reduce the number of vectors to be explored to the key ones. I define the key points as 'swing high and swing low'. Nothing about open and closes. Maybe my issue is that I had not understood the significance of open and closes sufficiently?


2-Yet we need timing without taking away timeframes, since in reality, markets actually have opens and closes e.g. asian session, NY session. Weekends are somewhat arbitrarily opens and closes as well. I was confused, plus my swing indicator isn't producing the required results I need, that I questioned the validity of my own work overall many times. Is the chart broken or is my indicator broken?

I reasoned that the chart needs fixing, since if the chart data is 'bad', the indicator would follow suit. I saw that range bars are the solution to my problem and my swing indicator produced results I needed; sufficiently clear swing structure (you had seen the screenshots).


3-I tried to create the concept of priceframes. e.g. larger moves relating to smaller moves, liken to the concept of timeframes e.g. smaller time structure relating to larger time structure. It worked for a while, and later I saw a problem; the relationship between larger vs small has to be found.

Barros seemed to had tackled it correctly e.g. in a downtrend -> flat -> reversal -> uptrend, one has to zoom in from the higher timeframe into the smaller timeframe, to look for signs of the transition happening. When you posted this (http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...12#post7727012) regarding the custom timeframe B2i, I knew something was up. The irony is that Barros uses fixed timeframes on lower levels (he calls its 1st lower and 2nd lower timeframes) to look for the transition.

Personally, I can't seem to get it to work because I see that I have to let the market decide what timeframe it wants to call into this phrase of the market. e.g. EURCHF was flat for many years(!!!). It might be a bad example, but I also understand that a pair with strong liquidity would be easier to work with, so that we have enough data samples to extract structures from. After all, Ray Barros himself trades liquid instruments e.g. S&P. Having a fixed timeframe appears to instill some form of structure into the trader's mind e.g. what is the next 24 hours compared to the next 24 hours? Using time as a frame of reference seems to help, until I found that price is 'better'.


4-Now that you are saying that the structures work similarly on a fixed and non fixed timeframe basis, I would actually agree. I am getting similar swing ratios
for the swings created on a time based chart VS price based chart. The only problem is that I cannot accept small Magnitude that my swings plot on a timebased chart, as it appears to distort overall results. I reasoned that 'why should I trade it or even take note of it even thou the movement plotted is not significant enough'? Perhaps, I am wrong with this assumption to justify use of range bars (or even anyone who uses range bars to filter out 'unnecessary movement' as they do not want to be 'distracted')?

Never a problem in any thread I create when the material is enlightening.


He graduated from MIT when I was just little kid, never knew of MIT's existence and certain never knew that I too would one day obtain a degree there (physics) and be able to call it an Alma mater of mine, one of three (Berkeley and ERAU). So, most any graduate of MIT will always have initially earned my respect intellectually.

Talk to your doctor, Relaxation, Assessment, Nutrition, Supplements, Calorie Reduction, Exercise, New Tech, Detoxification = TRANSCEND as a mnemonic and having created a fairly complex trading system myself with lots of mnemonics, I can appreciate such naming schemes that simply roll off the tongue so nicely.

I have not read the book - thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, based on the reviews, I will definitely be heading out this weekend and make it the focus of my routine weekly Book & Coffee escape. The notion of starting with Talking with your Doctor and the implication that everything begins with a biological test of necessary levels and/or potential problems. "Carotid ultrasound and coronary calcium scoring" are not the kinds of things that a layperson (non-medically trained) would ever think as being important to long term health.

However, I do realize that he's a "Futurist" of sorts and things such as "submicroscopic cell repairing robots" tend to cause me to long for a birth canal that was indeed 1,000 years into the future, not the 10-20 that he suggests. Still, as you say, his book was written a while ago and it has received good validation from some of those who are classically trained in the internal medicine profession. At the same time, he receives knocks by some of the same in the medical profession because he also sells supplements that he recommends in his book. That's not necessarily a bad thing at all, but it can be a good reason for skepticism in the minds of some. To wit, Dr. Oz, being busted for his comments and statements on his television show regarding dietary supplements and the contradictory statements made later before the United States Congress.

Bottom line, I think we all have to take direct responsibility for learning as much as we can about how the human body works, how to protect it, how to preserve it and how to sustain it for as long as we can. We can't be part-time doctors, but my reading into diabetes, the renal system, the ocular system and the metabolic system, tells me that highly specialized training is a must in order to be able to detail those systems, but a good conceptual understanding is possible with self-study and a connection to a trained doctor who can answer specific questions resulting out of your study. Often times, I find that the level of research that I have done individually, surpasses that which my GP feels comfortable going into detail about - so, I end up getting referred out to a specialist in a particular area when I want to discuss the findings of a White Paper, for example, on the Metabolic system as it relates to the Immune system and the production of antibodies.

Thanks for the book!

The idea is getting away from price on charts to price within a structure. That's a hard leap for some to take because it is so abstract in theory and practice. What we are really trading is Volume, Transactions, Deals and Deal Flows - most of it driven by psychology, itself predicated fundamentals. The majority of Traders are not technicians. This provides a built in advantage to the technical trader, however. Increasingly, however, we've seen quantitative analysis entering the market on a different level than traditional technical analysis and that is Changing The Game at the core level of price behavior. So, increasingly, you will be out there trading with bulk algorithms that range from simplistic binary logical triggers to exotic transformations of metadata about underlying price. Again, this is one of the main reasons I stick with currencies. The liquidity passing through Interbank is incredibly large on a daily basis and such depth of liquidity can better handle the underlying changes in the way people trade the data/market.

I have not built anything on Range Bars as of yet. I've always found them interesting but have not spent much time digging in. The obviously provide built-in filters for blocking certain noise levels and locally (within the range bar itself) smoothing small TF volatility. However, while many claim that standard M1 candles are too small to be useful in decision making, I have learned that M1 candles contain a wealth of information about the "signature" of price. This assumes that all price behavior is scalable up or down to the largest or smallest unit, of course. At some point, you scale the data down to a level that only Quants can work with because most commercially available platforms simply do not slice the data sufficiently to build anything out of it. What does a millisecond bar look like anyway? Not even traditional tick data is that refined. I digress.



That's all there is. There is nothing else that exists in any trade ever made which defines or governs accuracy to a specified target than those four regimes. Any indicator you spend your precious time on, had better fit inside one or more of those regimes. Else, you are simply wasting your time. Nothing will improve accuracy more than optimization of those four (4) realms of the market. Everybody wants to know what the "Holy Grail" looks like? That's it: Timing, Direction, Magnitude and Probability. If you are trading without those four things intact, then you might as well not be trading at all. Every good trade has those four components locked down as tight as human possible. That is when the Trader is really optimizing their trading routine.

All indicator designs should fit within at least one of those categories. The integration work in a multi-indicator system is all about finding the synergy between those four realms or categories of indicators. Line them up and then send them out to do your bidding.


Timing can fail. Probability can fail. That's 50% failure in your system. Hello! Yet, get the Direction and Magnitude right, and you can still net a profit. It may cost you more Draw and lost opportunity, which is still something of a lost because if you are not putting capital to work, you are losing money - contrary to what some people say. Here is something of an example:

9/19/2014 D1 B2i on H1 Chart
http://i58.tinypic.com/21ep89i.jpg

Timing is wrong (missed the entry by a whopping 74 pips - should have entered 74 pips earlier). Probability is wrong (failed to strike target within a certain range of time). Direction is right. Magnitude is right. Yet, this trade, though it is long over due, is still up 40 pips on its way to 58 at the target. Most importantly, trading like this provides that thing called Peace of Mind, which I don't care what anybody tells you, is absolutely priceless.

Proof:
http://i61.tinypic.com/sb4g7a.jpg



Magnitude is everything. Without it, there is no market to trade.


If you do enough Magnitude studies you will find that it can be misleading. Magnitude may look very well "set in" and Direction locked down and then it whips on you in the opposite direction. This is why it is important to work in developing indicators for all four regimes of price. When you apply all four, it increases the likelihood of target level penetration without obnoxious levels of MAE in the process.


As I've said for years, there is more to explore in Delta based trading than I, or anyone else will ever live long enough to fully unveil. There are plenty of Delta Connections out there that I have not even come close to exploring. What I have right now, is enough to suffice for my trading needs. Delta Class Indicators are a different breed of technical indicator without limits on their discovery. They are like starts in the universe - too many to count. That makes Delta based trading a wide open field for research.

I pioneered this stuff and pioneers typically never fully enjoy the full potential of their work. Someday, somebody will explore new Deltas and create scary algorithms from them! Who will that person be? I have no idea. But, they are out there, somewhere. When you start exploring the combination of deltas between different time frames, the potential for new discoveries are limitless.


Without the Vectors, which themselves are made up of smaller Trajectories, you can't really do a complete analysis of Magnitude, as Magnitude has to be aggregated and averaged across time. Vectors are larger forms of the point-to-point Trajectories. Just another layer of abstraction to visualize the directional quality of the market under any condition. What most people see are "trends." These are figments of the imagination and don't have the Higher Resolution Visibility that Trajectories and Vectors have. "Trends" are a sloppy way to visualize the directional quality of the market. "Trends" are analog. Trajectories and Vectors are hi-def digital. Not even remotely comparable and the main reason why I say that "trends" don't really exist. Sure, we observe price moving in a particular direction over a period of time and we call that the "trend." However, there is a lot more going on under the hood of that so-called "trend" and Trajectories and Vectors tell a more detailed story of directional quality and behavior.

Directional Quality and Directional Behavior, those are two interconnected ideas with completely different meaning. The Vector is the Behavior and the Quality is the Trajectory, once you get the data mapped out into something like Excel, but you can also generate the data in MQL as an indicator. Quality changes before Behavior changes and that's how you can go inside the "trend" an see Market Phase changes happening before most people know about it. It helps to provide an edge, which is one of the reasons why I don't get into specifics about how I exactly go about running my Directional Bias algorithms. However, you do need to use multiple time frames and find synergies in Trajectory Quality and Vector Behavior that link all time frames together.

That's about as far as I can go explaining that one.


No matter what time frames you select, the key is in finding synergy between the Quality and Behavior of Trajectories and Vectors in each time frame chosen. Use one time frame that is fast, one that is nominal and one that is slow, then study the quality and behavior or each and search for synergy in those two areas.

The concept of a point-to-point "Delta" is scalable and reflexive through bar size, so behavior has symmetry regardless of time frame selected. That took me years to understand and you just got it one sentence. When you know that, you can begin to identify synergy that triggers future events in the so-called "trend."

That is absolutely as far as I can take the subject. Anything beyond this point I classify as Do Not Ever Discuss.


Yep. I classify that subject as Do Not Ever Discuss. But, you are on the right track and my last statement to you in bold and red is a huge head start that no one gave me early on. I had create the stuff and then figure out how it works on top of that. So, you guys have foothold that I never had. But, yes - one really does need to spend some time figuring out how price goes about extending its Behavior and Quality into the future.

Once you do that, you start developing a whole new breed of Technical Indicator. Stuff that nobody else can see, or even knows exists. Like Alpha-4, Alpha-5, Alpha-6 and Alpha-7. Those indicators delta based are quite frankly so far beyond anything I've ever shared in public, that I could not even begin to explain them without uncovering some real gems that I simply do not discuss in public.

The Alph-4 and Alpha-5 integrated modules:
http://i62.tinypic.com/122g4nl.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/nnsdwy.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/10sdrg0.jpg

This is Metadata taken from advanced Delta indicators which is made possible by learning the synergy links between smaller and larger time frame data. A4 and A5 combine to produce the next Short trade signal, which is then sent to the MetaBrain to be voted on. I won't even show pictures of A6 and A7 in public.



EURCHF is a bad example of normalized data and I would not trade it based on what I do. However, lots of people do trade and make money with it. It reminds me too much of the stock market with thinly traded underlying that take-off on news one day and compress all volatility to near nothing the next. Too much of a problem child for me personally, when there are so many other full bodied volume and volatility consistent pairs out there to be traded.


Your revenue requirements should drive everything you do. If something does not have the requisite Magnitude or Volume stability or Volatility consistency, to meet the profit requirements that you have established for yourself, then you have to move on to something else that will - or - you have to change your expectations about what profit means to you as a Trader.

The first thing I did was study the Magnitude of all the major global pairs. Everything begins with Magnitude. I then studied the stability in price behavior between the two extremes (highest high and lowest low) of each time frame - I needed to know the history of how price makes those extremes in each bar. I then took a look at the cost of each pair - their associated spreads and relative overnight costs. So, my up front analysis had nothing to do with building indicators or trading systems. You have to know the fundamentals of the instruments you are working with and whether or not they contain sufficient price dynamics and have sufficient valuations in order to be of any use to your defined revenue goals.

This is the problem many Traders have - they seek the system first, without understanding the valuation of the instruments they trade. Make sure the instrument is set-up correctly and that its Magnitude is configured correctly to meet your revenue needs. Then, you can start to build indicators and systems upon it - but it needs a long history of stability in its fundamental valuation parameters in order for me to spend my time on it.

Hope that helps.

[quote=iDoubleStoch;7757702]{quote} The concept of a point-to-point "Delta" is scalable and reflexive through bar size, so behavior has symmetry regardless of time frame selected.

Dude your posts are epic, the effort is noted.
I have never heard of "delta trading" before this thread. By Delta I assume you mean the "difference between two values or the rate of change" which makes sense to all you have been talking about.

I started typing out a few questions but refrained and thought I would digest this for a while first.

I think I 'get' (emphasis on think) your quote above. At first I thought you were referring to Soros' reflexive.. but no..

@innate:
delta trade is equal retracement trade?
what's the difference?

Yes, I would agree with you here as I made my 1st discovery of patterns and structures on a M1 chart as well. My justification is that if price and time on a small scale already shows some kind of structure, surely the bigger scales should have something. Plus whenever I want to check something, I go to the M1 chart 1st before looking at other time/price frames.

Agreed. My work is currently IMO still far from perfection and I am still tuning it. I still have doubts here and there, but I've decided that its worth it to do all the homework ahead, so that in the heat of live trading, there's no need to doubt anymore.

Currently I am exploring the relationships of how lower price swings behave inside higher price swings. There's a lot of ground to cover but I do believe I have some solid leads. e.g. http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...79#post7722179 I suppose I need to continue to improve the modelling.

While in Vector Behavior I did find something 99% significant and consistent for all timeframes, which upon discovery I plugged it into my system straight away and surely it did gave my trading edge a huge boost, I say I would look further into Trajectory Quality, since being a swing and ZZ user, I tend to look into Vector Behavior a little too much.


Yes, Do Not Ever Discuss. When I decided I need to model out multiple time frames on a statistical basis, I decided to shutdown my lab and never to reveal anything further.

And of course... we know its not as simple as 50% retracement

There are a lot of threads and material out there regarding MTF analysis, but IMO not one, made the relationships between higher and lower timeframes as clear as crystal. I do think a lot of it out there is still pretty vague and general (especially true for a systems integrator! The devil is in the details, always, as I see it). Definitely I do not want that to be in my trading system! IMO Barros is the closest in terms of works revealed to the public, hence thats why I referenced him often. And maybe, just maybe, Goodman Wave Theory and Masterforex-V too. Regardless of whatever that's available, I suppose I need to discover my own model.

Ok, no more talk about it. I can see why it has to be a closely guarded secret.


Thank you... I see where you are coming from, being involved in systems integration myself, but I've never consider the full thought process to be important and detailed as you explained. Hence now I see it this way, in terms of logical flow of quality control;
1.Revenue requirements
2.Instrument evaluation
3.Chart data quality
4.System design
Horse before the chart, opps I mean cart. And never try to put the cart before the horse!

Lots! Thank you very much. I've always learnt so much from anything you post and refer to the posts as reference material from time to time. The good thing is that this thread is still reasonably compact (minus a little noise here and here )

Yes; I take delta trading to be the style of trading analyzing various specific price points. For example, a single bar can contain as many deltas as possible relationships from point to point. H-L, H-O, H-C, L-C, L-O, O-C. You can create more deltas by using more bars, for example current high-previous low. The world expands as you add and compare more deltas (averages of deltas vs other deltas, average differences between deltas, etc).

Hi OpenYourEyes,

Im sorry I don't understand what you are asking me about delta trading.

I think LiquidGenius has just explained it quite well. Thanks LG

Wow. This is crazy.

"The concept of a point-to-point "Delta" is scalable and reflexive through bar size, so behavior has symmetry regardless of time frame selected."

It sounds like the idea of "fractal" imaging to my very limited understanding of what that term means mathematically. But you say you are using three time frames to decide if the quality of price movements are similar in comparison. So if price action is similar across the three time frames, then that heightens the probability that the trade will be successful.
I suppose that what you mean by "quality"is a mathematically determined model as in the Alpha4/5 integrated models that you show above. I have a trading algorithm called GBP-bot that supposedly worked in this way. I don't know if you have access to, or would even need the code to determine if it is similar. Ironically, the bot worked best when the market was in Phase one and five.
To my understanding, it used the one minute (scalped/traded off the one minute TF...), compared to the M15 and the H TFs to make its comparison.
Is this idea similar to what you are saying?

Does that mean that as long as all TFs are trading in the same Direction, that Price has a very high probability of continuing in that direction?

Also, you say that it is reflexive through bar size. Do you mean that longer bars have a greater impetus to continue in that direction? If so, how does that help identify the Price Target and the end of the trade into a reversal/retracement?

I think the FF member 'Relativity' has some prior exposure to the baseline Delta concepts that I used to demonstrate quite a bit online. So, in some ways, that was an inside dialogue for this forum. I think I might have tried to open up that subject on this board many years ago, but got shut down by members and the forum administrator a couple times - so I stopped discussing it here.

Yes. Either the definition as used in physics, mathematics, engineering, etc., will do. Breaking the market down in this way, you are observing Delta Behavior, not necessarily Price Behavior. This instantly gives you a real market substrate of data to use in juxtaposition to real price data. You can consider it Market Dark Matter. There is far more Dark Matter in the universe (we suspect) than Matter and we further suspect that it (Dark Matter) is what holds everything else together - makes everything else possible. Like a background substrate of reality upon (or, in which) which our reality exists. When you sample enough market Delta, that's pretty much what you see.

It is the Unseen Market underneath the Seen Market you know and love so much. That's the market I trade. The unseen market.


Mathematics: Reflexive - The property where the dual space of a vector equals the vector space itself. This video might help. Pay particular attention to the "arrows" drawn at around 2:45 and the instructions given that creates each Vector. The idea I enforced was a "kind of" Vector Analysis of the Delta Substrate.



This subject starts to get into territory that I typically don't talk about in public, but I post this just to show you that there is a bit more behind the scenes of what I do. There is some real mathematics behind the madness - but I don't share the math because it provides me the algorithms upon which my edge is built. So, I can only discuss concepts and hope that it sparks the imagination of others to do their own thing and get outside the confinements of traditions.

You won't find anyone else doing this. I've had long conversations with Quants who have a hard time visualizing what I'm doing underneath and that tells me that I'm doing something rather unique in the market. There is what I call a Fundamental Trading Technology that I have established and it sit at the heart of the system. It is all based on a type and kind of Delta Analysis that I created and then applied to OHLC data across multiple time frames.

Taken from the video above:

http://i57.tinypic.com/2hewkdw.jpg

That's fundamentally how I see market Behavior and market Quality at a grass roots level. Can't go much more beyond this point in explaining it, however. It is basically a creative way to reaching applied mathematics in a financial market. It establishes the basis for more eloquent algorithmic designs and it provides a huge amount of data to work with.

All movement in the market takes place inside the Delta. No Delta. No Market. Everybody looks at the "Price" and in doing so, they completely miss the broader message the market is trying to convey. Price Points are mere references markets for the location of price within the Price Structure, which is the Delta substrate - the unseen "price" which is not a singularity at any "Time." Price is fluid and structured at all times (excepting those types of markets that have fix endpoint trading hours where price literally stops moving twice per 24 hr period).

Use at least three different speeds. It does not matter what they are, as long as they contain sufficient Delta to net profits as defined by your revenue requirements per trade. They can be any time frame as long as there is a significant speed differential between them. What's significant will depend your needs, research and the Delta necessary to meet the revenue requirements you have.

That's Synergy in both Quality and Behavior.


Don't have the bot or the code and have never looked at it. But, if it uses the same principles of Quality and Behavior that I have outlined and it is based on the Delta substrate underneath real price, then I would suspect that it should be similar at a fundamental level and the only differential in outcome would be due to the variances in the algorithms that lead to Entry and Exit.


LOL, yes. Is that not the "Grail" - to enter the market when "all" time frames were perfectly aligned and in agreement. That would be maximum optimization and the easiest trade to make, bar none. However, most trading takes place where maximum optimization is not possible because of differential market phases across multiple time frames and that is where matching Quality with Behavior becomes exceedingly important to remain consistently profitable.

Direction is not merely function of where each bar closes. That's a commonly accepted superficial assumption of the real price market. However, on the Delta substrate, one might find shifts in momentum within the Trajectories that lead to changes in Vectors, which ultimately result in changes in the "seen trend." So, prices could be closing UP, but underlying Trajectories and Vectors are already starting to turn DOWN. This is the battleground for finding good Trade Logic that strikes optimal Synergy between the time frames using the Delta substrate.


See definition above for the reflexive nature of Trajectories and Vectors.

"However, most trading takes place where maximum optimization is not possible because of differential market phases across multiple time frames..."

So optimally, all rates of change across multiple time frames would have nearly the same value to enter into an optimal trade. But that's rare, so we are to assume that there must be a "Delta Envelope" or acceptable variance range between all Deltas that you use to find an acceptable trade risk. You probably won't find matching Deltas every day and it seems you trade quite often.
Therefore, there must be an acceptable risk envelope whose value I would also imagine is in the DND (Do Not Discuss...) category.

Then, do you assign negative Deltas to time frames where price is going down, compared to positive Deltas where price is rising, or do you consider all Delta values to be positive real numbers?

I found this interesting article on the front page of ForexFactory.

http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=505784

It seems that rats can trade better than humans!
The reason is that humans are looking at price charts visually and are making reasoned arguments in their heads about direction. The rats have had price feed data converted into piano sounds and can better tell direction that way.

i know I may be waaaaaay off here, but is this concept not similar to what you have been saying in that the visualised price chart will fool you and what you should be doing is "listening" to the market sing (of Delta variance across multiple time frames...)? Addo: I mean, music is simply changes (Deltas...) in pitch over time, right?
Fascinating stuff.

I wonder if you would know a way to convert your algos into musical form and make trading easier by simply listening to the music? Would that idea even pique your interest?

http://www.rattraders.com/