zdo

Yes, superimposed on / in conjunction with / comparing measures of C<or>CurrentBid(and CurrentAsk), there are certain ‘market conditions’ where up and ticks are more than sufficient proxy. Also, restarting the ‘net’ at individual price swing pivots instead of summing it continuously from an ‘open’ or restarting at each individual bar can be quite helpful in certain ‘market conditions’…

flyingdutchmen, Is your offer for helping still open? I got another one ... (that may or may not be helpful to the many, btw…) Many thanks.

advert2000, Trading IS predator vs predator… but you don’t eat your 'kill'. You just take his chips. Going solely from your post and reply – I suggest that you go inward and serially kill all your trading metaphors. If you are one of the few who really does well with opm, then start a legit hedge fund. If you are just drawn to cooperation, then maybe start a business with some good people – even go into mlm. Basically, from me and the other responses, the msg to you is that your intentions and ‘trading’ don’t seem to be congruent. But - these are YOUR life lessons to learn. And whether you learn them from the experience of others or from your own processes I wish you All the best. zdo

Jacob, The answer is highly system specific and those who generalize ‘best’ levels from their own specific systems aren’t really helping you or anyone else. For some systems, routine 40% drawdowns are appropriate. Otoh, some systems shouldn’t let more than ‘coffee money’ go – ie way under 2% per trade, etc. See the extremes? Both extreme answers are correct – when the underlying system is considered first. You're really asking two questions. One is about size. The other is about stops. Know the best numbers for your system. The Q and A is paramount to survival and thriving. Be aware things like - The best fit fixed percentage is unlikely to be the best fit fixed percentage a year (month, week, whatever) from now… One way of dealing with these quesitons (not necessarily the best btw): Viable systems have a (variable sized, but usually surprisingly small) sweet spot outside risk of ruin and somewhere under optimum f. (A few systems can be ‘overclocked’ / have limits pushed twd opt f, but they are rare. Running at optimal f is usually more like running at Maximum F'd ) See Money Management Strategies for Futures Traders Nauzer J. Balsara etc.

another way of phrasing the question Without measurements would there be fractals?

BlowFish, re “Hey Zdo I'd still be interested in how you think market data been generated by an auction precludes it from being a fractal?” (…Preface - these answers may disappoint. you were notified… ) For years, I stayed attenuated to ‘finding’ them in the market data / tracks / representations. Didn’t find them – motorway and Edgar Peters notwithstanding. So, on a whim, I stepped up the context and started asking about finding them in the process – while acknowledging it was my limited local personal experience of the (A)auction. My ‘assertion’ several posts ago was that I did not find fractal in the actual Auction and I did not find it in the tracks left by the auction either. In the end, it was a realization that I would have to exclude too much of my wisdom to ‘make fractaling work’ – why do that? re: I'd also be interested in how you define 'the auction'... the A word is as misused and over used as the F word imho " “We could intellectually dissect any particular thing for 10,000 years and not arrive at the truth of experiencing that thing.”Ya Mu I would also be interested in how I define 'the auction’ :doh: Same for the Market (the M) word. Is the M word as misused and over used as A and F? I trust my preverbal constructs of the A and the M enough to participate in them. I trust yours too… see Arthur Young Arthur M. Young: The Theory of Process etc I do not trust my preverbal constructs of F enough to participate in them... re: "Also worth repeating that the markets may well be fractal without being mathematical fractals (like coastlines). From a couple of things you said I guess you may well be talking about the latter." Yes No Both, Maybe… A possible corollary to my previously posted snippets in bold? - a ‘conceptual’ / non mathematical fractal does not a real fractal make . see questions at end… re; “Different terms of reference offer hamper understanding another point of view and I still am not sure exactly why you think the markets are not fractal.” But I do think fractals exist in the market. and But I understand that they don’t manifest in the market – at least for me. I now find myself “standing ok“in the tension right in the middle of these two ‘ways’… not compelled to manipulate the structural conflicts btwn the two possibilities. ...However, I am now freakin scared to include vibration, association / harmonics, and cycles in this conversation…so I won’t The questions I have today– Are (your / our) fractals ‘of’ / ‘in’ the measurements ? or Are (your / our) fractals ‘of’ / ‘in’ the phenomena?

Have you checked Tom Demark's breakout setup's? Would post them but don't remember them... can dig them up if you can't find them... They might be too 'wide' for fx and / or your purposes...

Blowfish, wanted to take a moment and let you know I've not been ignoring your posts. re “different argument” and “non sequitor “ Please forgive me (and virtually everyone else herein) for not having or taking the time to form good, sound “arguments” and or provide concise definitions. If you’ll check, I think you’ll find I was carrying on several simultaneous, rather ragged, conversations and only occasionally mashing them all together to form those non sequiter. These conversations have been about 1) whether markets are or are not fractal. I say not. Theory… ‘fractal - like’ does not fractal make. As above, so below – NOT! 2) that if we just loosen the definitions and get practical and realistic then we are in effect trading fractals. I posited if the ‘serious’ fractal traders aren’t really trading fractals, then no one else really is either. Interspersed in that conversation, I kept making the point that an ‘occasional fractal’ does not fractal make. 3) (closely related to 2)) that fractal in the name makes it really fractal. I say not. And the “F word” is still being used all over the place… the label is co – opted, corrupted… not quite sure why you were correcting me on this part. re: “no need to loosen or tighten definitions” I agree. robertm asserted that some of us were way “over complicating” it. I was questioning his loosening the definition to just ‘repeating setups’. (see 2) above) “Btw. no one has suggested 'everyone is trading fractals'” True – no one really has. But in the ‘arguments’ between robertm and myself, it appeared to me that he was saying if we ‘simplified’ things enough, if we loosened the definitions enough, then we could all happily be trading fractals. Statements like “Markets are fractal in so far as we can see the same patterns (setups) repeating regardless of instrument and time frame, allowing for a singular system approach…” etc. I pushed both our arguments out to the extremes – everyone is ‘trading fractal’ vs ‘no one is trading fractal’ to make my points that occasionally fractal (repeating setup) do not a fractal market make, etc re: “One of the few practical applications I can think of, that is quite accessible to the 'layman' is the polarised fractal efficiency indicator… It's an interesting concept.” Have you looked at the formula lately? Seems to me, while Larson’s idea may have been catalysed by Mendelbrot’s work, in real life it could have just been named ‘polarized efficiency indicator’ period… more co-opting of an obtuse ‘new’ word… more F word And re: “Just because F word used to be used all over the place mainly to market dubious systems a whole bunch of other 'experts' just dismissed the whole discipline” If you will check back through my posts in this thread, I think you’ll find I have been saying the same thing. While a whole bunch of other 'experts' have just dismissed the whole discipline (mainly because it’s not their niche), if we could take an accurate poll I would bet the collective consensus is that markets are fractal. My conclusions that markets are not fractal are based on ~ 25 years of observation and trading of the ‘above’ and the ‘below’ and the ‘in betweens’ of representations of the market. They are not based or founded in math. I only offer these opinions as an alternative – not as ‘the’ truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaAjL2ybLVg]YouTube - Research Summary US Futures Trading - TABB TV[/ame]

Sure. No problem. Just go to US Special Forces Tracking and Counter-Tracking, TC 31-34-4, Sep 2009 - Wikileaks :spam:

Fractals is a niche. An obviously and increasingly corrupted one. So far, this thread has not been talking about gaining an edge. It has been about fractals – their presence(s) and qualities. If I don’t think your .01% of Quants & Algo's are actually finding and trading ‘fractals’, then I certainly don’t think the other 99.99%, are, more casually, but still ‘purposefully fractal trading’. The drift of your posts is that everyone is trading fractals – just so long as we loosen up the definitions enough. The drift of my posts is that no one is really trading fractals, regardless of the purity of the definitions being applied...

Wow the grab bags at this fractal party are amazing – reach right in! No telling what you’ll pull out. BF, check around. You can find stoopidity in any and all my posts. So re “What is 'the real auction'” The real auction is the instantaneous objective and projective whole market for an instrument – irrespective of the millions, no billions, of individual constructs about it. (Maybe TL is not a good circle in which to use the term. It may be just as atrocious a buzzword as ‘fractal’ is becoming… yada yada) All I’m doing here is expressing my personal doubts about the whole market fractals thang and my reservations that there are widespread efficiencies in pursuing ‘fractal’ centered trading methods. (And yes, THE auction may be comprised of multiple simultaneous auctions. Size matters. But, I also don’t see the small players and the big players in any ‘fractal’ relationships there either btw) The main point of all my posts in this thread is: In the representations of THE auction (be they barcharts, timeframes, travel, time series, wave counts, whatever…) my limited brain has NOT found fractals. It has found ‘fractal – like’ and ‘transient neighborhoods of fracticality’ – but not real fractals. In resistance to closure, I’m not going so far as to say they can’t be ‘quantified’ - but it gets downright quizzical to me if it only shows / if you can only find ‘fractal’ in certain types of representation of the auction and not the others. My rough summation is that ‘fractal’ (not the co-opted buzzword type but in the purest mathematical sense ) is just not likely to be as effective ‘empirically’ in the real world as some noobies might ‘want’…

Many Thanks, flydutchmen. Looks good at first glance. Will take a look at it later today. PS Something in the pictures and frames prevented me from getting over to the Thanks button

robertm I get what you’re saying but it’s …Way under complicated A ‘similar pattern’ does not a fractal make. That’s just co-opting the word for a catchy buzzword like Bill Williams, Jack Hershey, etc try to do … obviously, with much more success than is good for the trading ‘public’ btw Real fractal work don’t allow the occasional spotting of ‘one’ and letting the rest be noise, etc. The ‘people see what they want to see’ line is getting tired too – especially the ‘want’ part. If I saw what I wanted to see my net worth would be in the billions and so would yours… (my gift to you… happy holidays already) We routinely ‘see’ within the constructs of what we are predisposed to ‘see’- but that is not a necessity. We can at any point choose to improve at seeing what is...

motorway, Thanks for your post. Unfortunately after an as yet undefined number of wash and rinse cycles in the real world, we'll find that “end to end” is ultimately just as artificial and unworkable as “timeframes”

bf, Maybe check to see if Allstate will work with you on this... like if they will grandfather you in on 'accident forgiveness', etc...

You're missing something or you're jerking my chain I "made up my mind" in favor of fractals long ago... conceptually, market fractals are so 'wired'... I liked what I 'saw', still do ... but extended, actual experiences have forced me to unmake up my mind... there are neighborhoods of tf's that are 'fractal' but way above and way below and etc NOT!... false fractals - a result of culturally accepted, but inadequate representations. I love Mandelbrot, etc.! I use fractal dimensions in some systems. But that said - I’ve concluded the only thing fractal across tf’s is up is up, and down is down. DBP has written so much better than I could about the pitfalls in the representations of the auctions – especially in bars. The map is not the thing mapped etc. If a three tick bar is already a rapidly degrading misrepresentation, then a weekly is not going to be an equivalent representation - it's just a worse representation, not a fractal in scale or behaviour. Bottom line for me – the real auction has NO fractals above or below it…ie the actual auction is not a ‘fractal’ of a larger or smaller ‘economy’ - so I can’t figure why to be looking for fractals in the representations of the auction – especially since what I found when looking for them (for freakin years) didn’t hold up in practical trading and systems development…

Tams, .. but I wanted to see them - still do! How come I can't ? :rofl:

With that definition "By fractal I mean the patterns and behaviors of the market are equally relevant, and traded the same, regardless of the time frame...more or less." My short answer would have to be NO! Long ago I bought into fractals, but my own direct experiences lead me to this --- They lied to us! As above, so below - NOT!

john w, Generally speaking, with mini's go with stop market... dynamically locating your stops is SO much more important than (any virtually inconsequential) occasional slippage . In normal auctions, slippage is negligible with at market stops. In a fast market, you have the options to 1 continue to apply your normal rules, 2 slide the stop order(s) out to disaster land, get up on the stick, and click in and out manually, or 3 practice never letting a stop get hit by going to market (and cancelling the live stop before it's hit)... with practice, one can actually do a lot of clicking in 1 sec ... Remember though that the use of stops, location of stops, type of stops, etc is ultimately always individual system dependent. If you don't qualify every answer you get to these types of questions with this dependency, it can end up sorta like asking a wheat farmer how to grow ginseng and getting a wheat growing answer to a ginseng growing question... hth

flyingdutchmen, re: “… and the line can be any value-line from price data to some kind of indicator line ? “ Yes, any ‘chartable’ line. A SimpleMovingAvg is the simplest example. Example attached. re: “i surpose you are refering to straight as in not "choppy" “ For this question, “choppy” is not quite the ‘other’ of straight. For this, it is straight (within tolerance) as in not curving. See attached – the grey rectangles show (very roughly) the curving areas and the none marked areas are (roughly) within the tolerance of straight. I use the word ‘roughly’ mainly because the eyes are easily deceived - especially to see straightness when it’s really curving…(maybe it's just my eyes, btw. but in any event I need and appreciate help with this) Many thanks.

flyingdutchmen, Hi. What is the most efficient (and ubiquitous across scales) way in EL to measure when a line (any line) has stopped curving and has straightened out for n bars? For purposes of example, let's look for 3 bars with the line ‘straight’ Note it’s not required that it be perfectly straight, just within tolerance. Many thanks. zdo

Free To Move or ZHealth RPhase...

OK guys. Here it CST – distilled. “Distilled my ass! It's a thousand links!” you say… hey I tried … blame it on the adhd This CST stuff is not pretty or conventional, but for me doing it has resulted in releases and recovery from long standing painful limitations, much improvement in adaptive ways of creating and responding in daily life, downright scary acceleration and speed, increased strength and endurance, and a progressive improvement in overall health. The joint mobility work gives me an unconventional avenue for lifting much heavier – as I still lift plate weights +- twice a week. The hard yoga has catalyzed an exploration of true spinal alignment techniques , etc. – not to mention a tension free neck and back. I’m sure the same can be said for a lot of programs (self or other designed), but none that I’ve ever tried even comes close to CST… INTRO Circular Strength Training Circular Strength Training FOR PURCHASE > The IntuFlow ‘ring’ https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Free-To-Move-Book-Intu-Flow-2-DVD-_p_194.html'>https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Free-To-Move-Book-Intu-Flow-2-DVD-_p_194.html or separately https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Intu-Flow-2-DVD-Set_p_171.html https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Free-To-Move-Book_p_192.html >The Workout ‘ring’ ClubBells https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Clubbellreg-Training-for-Circular-Strength--DVD_p_14.html https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/The-Big-Book-of-Clubbell-Training_p_154.html Body Weight Bodyweight Exercise Revolution Complete Program: Bodyweight Workouts That Deliver >The Prasara ‘ring’ https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Prasara-Yoga-Book-Prasara-Instructional-DVD_p_112.html Misc. for sale https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/Be-Breathed--DVD_p_22.html Note: I elected to filter the QuickStart Packages from this ‘distillation’ but they may be for you… if so… https://rmaxinternational.3dcartstores.com/ Hard core TACFIT. These are endurance drills… some of them make advanced P90X, etc workouts look like wet biscuits TACFIT Site Zhealth is a 3 phase central nervous system oriented ‘version’ of IntuFlow (which is biotensegrity focused). It might be a better fit for some. I benefit a lot from it... basically same ‘ends’ as IntuFlow but with a different progression What is Z-Health? | Z-Health Performance FREE SAMPLES (usually missing the content and ‘scientific’ depth , btw) >IntuFlow ring Free To Move (or start at for same videos [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1aLdYgfr3M&feature=related]YouTube - Scott Sonnon Intuflow Joint Mobility Beginner Part 1[/ame] and progress to other links listed there… “prehab”… ) >The workouts ring Bodyweight stuff. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0CAPIl-Hd8&feature=related]YouTube - Bodyweight Exercises Your Trainer's Never Heard Of - CST Quad Hop to Box[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-TRaG_A19c&feature=related]YouTube - Scott Sonnon Leg Killer Workout TACFIT Tactical Fitness[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZJwMpvJiYM&feature=related]YouTube - Scott Sonnon Threading Scorpion Bridge Progression[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mJNJKwcgbI&feature=related]YouTube - Top 5 Animal Bodyweight Exercises: #4 Ape Step[/ame] 4X7 series [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be6vO01rgx8&feature=fvw]YouTube - 4x7 Sonnon Day Part 1[/ame] Mostly the middle / workout ring, with a small sample of the Prasara yoga in the bridges and at the end [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t776I1J6Y1E&feature=related]YouTube - Be The Flow - Scott Sonnon[/ame] > Prasara ring [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duMScxR7LJ8&feature=related]YouTube - Scott Sonnon Prasara Parkour[/ame] all the best. zdo

fx houses do not “control price swings b/c they make the quotes”. Yes they do all the things reported in the article above plus a few other deviant little tricks the articles didn’t cover but --- If they widen or slip the spread outside the ‘tolerance’, they lose transactions immediately and the accts may punish them for months and months or even never come back. Same for overall transaction costs. If they deviate from other quotes (especially from ECN’s), there are algo’s just waiting to tear them a big new one… Stops that are ‘close by’ get run on all the exchanges – as much (and even more sometimes) in futures than in fx. Basically, all trading profits are made in spite of the house. It is the individual trader’s responsibility to optimize trxs costs period. Yes, ‘they’ do increment millions and millions in teenytiny amounts at a time off retail accounts. However, operating with far less revenue than fx, another ‘they’ probably makes close to the same "near certain" absolute millions and millions in ‘dealing’ listed stocks by ‘taking’ larger (but still tiny) amounts from their 'clients'... I just can’t support the notion that fx is significantly ‘crookeder’ than banks or exchange traded instruments. They are ALL crooked as hell… For example, currently Comex makes fx houses look like angels … they do not actually have in the warehouse the metals they are reporting they have… fishy serial numbers on bars… huge delays on delivery… exorbitant fees for delivery… The same kinds of sullied conditions can easily develop ‘overnight’ in energy, agriculturals, softs, etc. Not saying trust fx houses at all! Am saying they are no less trustworthy than any of the other types of houses in the current system. Not saying you’re overreacting to fx. Am saying you are probably under reacting to your other trading ‘exchanges’. In truly turbulent times, you would have just as much luck closing your positions at reasonable prices and ordering a check in the amount of your balance from an fx house as you would any of the other “more carefully regulated” houses…