onesmith

If moving a data point from a larger timeframe to a smaller timeframe results in converting what might have been dynamic on the larger frame into a series of non updating values for multiple bars then transposing that value to the smaller timeframe assures it is static even if it is dynamic in the larger frame. Any number that remains constant while OHLC are dynamic is going to be static relative to the current timeframe. I appreciate that you gave this idea some thought. It was intended to make everyone think. It's not the subject of numerous other threads. It's been suggested in this thread that there aren't enough ideas filling the void created by running out the scammers. It's also been said we shouldn't be critical of others unless we understand the specific nature of what they're doing. This is my attempt to share an alternative view. It's ok to judge the methods of others and dismiss those methods as weak. When comparing apples to apples, all other things being equal, choose dynamic. Not all horizontal numbers are invalid. But given this is a competitive endeavor why consider anything static?

This will give you access to the ten minute High, Low and range history on a one minute chart. H0 is the current 10m bars H. H1 is the previous 10m bars H. H2 (on your 1m chart) is the same as H[2] on the 10m. Same syntax for Low and range, just substitute L or R for H. I didn't understand precisely how the projection you want is formulated so I didn't include that. But it's simple to create anything you might want using the variables defined. Just comment out the sample plots and add what you need. var: ttm(0), ip(0), m(0), H0(0), H1(0), H2(0), L0(0), L1(0), L2(0), r0(0), r1(0), r2(0); ttm=timetominutes(t); ip=intportion(t/10); m=mod(ttm,10); if m[1]=0 or (ip<>ip[1] and m>0) then begin H2=H1; L2=L1; r2=r1; H1=H0; L1=L0; r1=r0; H0=H; L0=L; end; H0=maxlist(H0,H); L0=minlist(L0,L); r0=H0-L0; plot10(H0,"H0"); plot11(H1,"H1");

How many of the various types of horizontal lines are dynamic? How many are static?

one or TWO (2)? I choose TWO (2).

I will accept an apology from steve46 as sufficient to resolve this. If another week goes by without resolution then I am pursuing a legal solution to steve46 claiming I am a "crazy person". Libel is a felony. You are aware you can't continue to enable someone to use TL as a platform for ongoing criminal activity, after it's been brought to your attn.

GRAND OPENING! never ending flavors of the truth. My Mom (smaj ymmij ton) says there are rumors that I choose can instead of can't (but I have always chosen can't). So I said NOT TRUE Lefty (in part) because that's the easiest of my Mom's [missing link] personality splits to reason with and in part too because second my Mom Lefty understands indisputable proof of choosing can't verses unsupported speculation to start rumors about me choosing can. Can or can't? I choose can't. I have chosen can't from the beginning.

WRB, I said somethings to you in the past that were inappropriate. I apologize for those inappropriate choices. I am still reviewing what I need to change about myself so I can make better choices in the future.

Excellent post steve. Thank you. It appears that's works well for you and when used in conjuction with all the other stuff you've demonstrated mastery over you've definitely carved a nice niche for yourself within the market. When I start topics like this it's rarely my intent to convince anyone that there's any wisdom whatsover in anything I state. I also tend to include lots of disinformation. My intent in revealing this is unrelated to anything other than my process which is about me so please don't feel bad like you got caught in something bad here because you haven't and the things you say make a lot of sense. The context of this topic doesn't detract from that. My process relies on my subconscious to resolve everything presented to it. I've been wanting to start another topic besides this one in which essentially just naming the topic and creating it without any intent of ever adding to it or caring if anyone posts to it. I can't do that because I would have to include a word that I refuse to use in the public domain. Ok, just this once I will break that rule and share that word. Fractals. Hopefully the karma of saying that in the public domain won't adversely affect my subconscious but self-observant as I am I've already noticed a drastic decrease in my typing speed and flow of ideas. However, I'm going to allow it to be ok this once for me to mention something that might be proprietary because it might just be that trickery and disinformation I mentioned. BTW, please don't take any of this as being about you. It is not, it is about me, it is always about me. Most of the stuff everyone posts most of the time is about them. Occassionally someone unexpected says something that clicks and off I go on an extended research. I'm aware I'm rambling and not attempting to tie anythig into a cohesive flow with paragraphs or even sentences anyone can follow but I'm in an excellent mood right this moment and don't care about much other than sharing the joy I'm experiencing at this moment. Hope you are well and everything is going your way in the markets. I

You know better than to say something like that. It encourages the type of thing I assume you are against. Speculation unsupported by fact and clearly known to be false at the time it's posted. Steve46 has a lot of history with a lot of people that you're not aware of. What you witnessed was an offer to put "our" part of his history behind us and form an alliance where we are friends or at least he respects the rule that says he's not permitted to say things about me that he knows are false at the time he's posting them. I apologize to you Db. I could have spent more time on the logical progression in my last post so you would understand the vague bits. I rationalized that laziness as a pre-alliance peace offering where revealing how all the bits fit together doesn't interest me as long as I get the apology owed to me and steve46 stops posting lies about me that he knows are false at the time he's posting them. I mistakenly figured steve46 (who definitely knows where the bits go) would see the wisdom of granting me an apology. But he has declined that alliance at least for now and apparently needs to see exactly which overwhelming truths he's facing.

I see various pupose driven agendas. For instance your frequent claims there's always some nonsense going on here is easily correlated to events diminishing your status. The actual nonsense at those moments in time was perpetrated by you in your attempts to discredit the sources diminishing your status. Read your recent posts to me. I haven't said anything untrue about you. Why post obvious lies about me? Have you ever considered saying to me (not me saying to you) .... "Sorry I made some mistakes. I understand I was wrong and it won't happen again." And after that humbly accepting if my friend Lefty from my trading office private messages me and politely asks me to elaborate on somethings he doesn't get... like mostly just stuff you're always claiming is senseless so whatever no worries ... and that could double the number of pages in this topic and fill a lot of others while the only control you would have over that would be to ask me what's up and if I felt YOU needed to apologize to me again. Maybe I'm mistaken and you haven't posted a bunch of lies about me and you're thinking we need to debate that. Otherwise here's one way to end this quickly, ... for now and perhaps forever if you rememeber this lesson which will be easy given your lies will stand forever next to the truth I've posted about you ..... as proof not necessarilly refuted but overcome by agreement that this lesson which definitely needed to be learned was finally deployed accepted and closed. Pick anything within any of your recent posts to me that is simply untrue and OWN IT. Own that it is a lie. Apologize. Admit your mistake and trust that I will forgive you.

Difficulty controling emotions contributes toward excluding success. It doesn't add to success. The probability of someone claiming to be a trader, particularly a rule based trader that has attained success, being unable to control their emotions fails the new car smell test. It's an indication of a failed trader or dog whose had his bowl moved. This isn't an entirely abstract analysis. Actual sample outbursts contain a common trait where the words "I am loving this" repeatedly occur during an elevated state commonly called a manic state. Steve46 places an extremely high value on attaining that state. It's his favorite state. He desires interaction that is able to trigger that state more than he desires anything else. Although it requires speculation to form that conclusion it's obvious indisputable truth.

I remember your belief in the existence of proprietary IP but within the context of the contradictions that possibility is zero after nullifying the potential black swan event because outliers evolve toward extinction quicker in a darwinian environment than in other number sets. I am sincerely pleased when your're inspired regardless of the source. Anytime you're inspired you should pursue truth with zest.

Note to moderator. If there's ever anything in a post that isn't true then it should stand forever as representative of the facts. My recent comments to this topic have limited scope and breadth in the sense that I'm not going over the same things over and over again. Whether what I say is true or false requires verfication but it makes no sense to delete stuff if it's false because that destroys the proof that it's false. This constant purge and repeat process management has favored is the reason TL is unable to attract users with the strength to continue to build upon facts. As Mitsubishi often says it's nearly time for Felton to come strolling back as if no proof remains to be refuted. Deleting the historical record has never helped the victim of an untruth or the perpetrator of the untruth but it's definitely hurt everyone interested in building upon the truth. It's impossible to build upon what is true when the record of what is true and what is false is deleted. My concern at the moment is steve46's efforts to self derail his own topic so that my comments will be deleted along with his. This is a common ploy of his to take his topics into the cabbage and then call foul. In the past management rationalized deleting posts that presented information others didn't have by saying the info was biased against the thread owner and they should be free to be left alone to make whatever claims they want to make on their threads without interference. While that sounds logical it has never worked. And it doesn't take into consideration the extenuating circumstances that exist at this moment where steve46 has spammed aproximately 10 other topics over the past 3 months dragging his class, an open house, and a bunch of other over the top near constant self promotion into nearly every topic he's posted to with the exception of maybe 3 recent topics where he's not achieved that as of yet. The worst thing admin has done thus far in this area besides deleting the truth is to move the truth around and start new topics particularly for vendors and comments opposed to specific vendors. That's not fair to the vendor or those opposed to the vendor. And definitely makes it hard for anyone searching for the truth to recreate the actual events and determine the truth. If it's determined that this topic needs to exist in some other form then that choice should be made available to the individuals involved. Please suggest it to a vendor in the future rather than toss a portion of their thread into the commercial section and expect that to work with someone such as steve46 who has frequently indicated in the past a strong tendency to storm off in disgust while saying something along the lines of he won't be back. Sorry steve46, not my intention to draw attention to that aspect of you at this moment but it does help bring home the point that whatever management decides is likely to fail if it removes anyones choice to chose for themselves how they want to proceed in the future given constraints set by management. It is always preferrable to leave choices in the hands of those you expect to honor the rules of the constraints or act within the limits determined by their choices. This took more words than I wanted but hopefully the spirit and intent is clear enough that I've succeeded. If management chooses correctly it's possible everyone will join in everywhere and build upon truth everywhere. If mgmt fails then truth will suffer because there's too much effort required to continualy start from where the last purge began and rebuild the truth management determined was inappropriate. There's an exception to everything. Personal data, name, address, phone # should be deleted unless that info is being placed in the public domain by the person who owns it.

Anyone remember steve46's arrogant comments and attempt to demonstrate expertise in determining the best trading platform? Anyone think it's too funny (given that past historical record) that he's using a platform that obviously overwhelms him? Am I the only one that finds humor in him calling ON THE DOT in reference to a time based rule? .. given he posted his usual chart as proof of that prediction and there weren't any time references (of any kind) on the chart. And there's never been a dot on ANY of his charts at anytime .. ever. Remember the red and green arrows used as a teaching aid awhile back? Not the red green buy sell Signal Arrows. The other arrows. Did anyone make the connection I did that he was so overwhelmed he couldn't simplify it to just color code the lines themselves? They were illustrative of red green qualities of the blue lines they were associated with. Off toward the right edge of his screen? He was using red green color coded arrows to differentiate blue lines that had a red bias from blue lines that had a green bias. Anyone that takes the time to verify the context will see how ridiculous that was. Anyone who reads the topic from beginning to end will understand all the little hoops he has to jump through to download external data, massage it in excel, which takes math skills btw. And leaves us with the circumstances where we have the success illustrated in the charts posted. Anyone remember Steve46 posting about the significance of 46 and then after reconsidering the wisdom of that editing it out of his message? Has anyone who as observed him in the past, formed an opinion about his propensity to say things in the form of an emotional ouburst and then egularly reconsider and delete his comments? Anyone notice his more recent attempts to repress his emotions? Is there any significance in considering anyones ability to control their emotions? Is it probable someone prone to emotional responses is simultaneously (or at least during the same lifespan) likely to be successfully trading rule based logical trading methods?

I have done the case studies to form conclusions based on fact. I'm not aware of ettiquette that requires I limit questions to when I am prompted. I accept your conclusions as satisfying your personal requirements that define fact. Far better be it that I ask an occasional question than state the facts. If my questions do not add value for you then that is not my concern. My objective is to obtain answers to questions. Your efforts to redirect me have added additional understanding to things unrelated to my questions so I am both appreciative and disappointed in your reply.

Has anyone found anything articulatably tangible within steve46's teachings? That consistently wins? More than it loses?

Vegas offers a type of spread betting where the odds makers attempt to neutralize the risk reward ratio across a series of bets so that gamblers will favor the odds that help to hedge the casino's exposure.

JAM is an honest vendor. Definitely one of the best EasyLanguage programmers. Highly skilled and knowledgable.

The code is locked. It's not possbile to view the source.

randini, I think you will like the thread linked to below. His trading style is almost identical to yours. http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/16226-how-i-trade-if-price-random.html

The only inefficiency reasonably large enough to consider is the discernible footprint of the best automated strats non randomly generating the non random data everyone follows. Rule based logic instruction sets are extremely efficient (at generating inefficient data). Random inefficiencies (or inefficiencies in random data) quickly evolve toward extinction when those inefficiencies attempt to coexist in an environment where competition (for profit) creates rule based order. It doesn't take many generations for this rule based logic (based on other than any random edges) to result in (rule based) structured data which is the ultimate inefficiency.

TD might be the only one that will get this. Indolence? There are plenty of failed traders that aren't lazy. People that have attained success in other areas and have the absurdly obvious work ethic required for success in any endeavor. It's ironically amusing to speculate about a circle of posters on Traders Laboratory parroting laziness while the odds of other circles mentioning laziness are as astronomically off the wall as anyone within another circle being on a locally ecentric path different from anyone else. Cost of incorrectly blaming laziness as the reason traders fail = insignificant. Other cost = beyond putting a price on but not necessarily bad if your emotional quotient is sufficent to enable your intellect to parse the differences implied by the choice of paths.

When I go to that website and attempt to train as a guest it returns a box with nothing but a red x in the upper left corner. It's either on their end or javascript or anti-virus at my end. I have other priorities but I'm grateful for your contributions thus far because they have helped my focus. Thanks. When setting upper and lower limits on a simple random number generator it taints the results. Constraints within the more sophisticated random number generators likewise contribute non-random artifacts to the random data that mimics market data. The best of the best strategies should fail when trading on random data. But imagine an algorithm generating random data. What if it's constraints are based upon the non random structure of real market data? Would the human eye be able to tell the differencer between that flavor of random data and real data? Would other strats be able to distinguish a difference in the data? Would the results of other strats improve when they were trading on this random data? Would it really be random data? Is real data generated by (non random) strats?

You should have left this unedited instead of deleting it. It wasn't offensive and it wasn't off topic.

First ten bagger charting daily bars by hand one bar at a time forty years ago