|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Walt Downs wrote:
> >David Cicia wrote:
> >
> >>What I'd like to see is specific correlations and precise indications,
> >>not subject to subjective interpetation.
>
> Ron wrote:
> >
> >>The above quote was used in a post about astrology
> >While the quote itself was directed at astrology, could it not apply to
> >virtually every technical indicator, or even Delta
> <snip>
>
> >I might interpret a stochastic one way and you another. Or, you might
> >interpret a RSI one way and I another way.
>
> Norman might interpret the stars one way and Arch Crawford another.
> >SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION!!
> >
> >Is there such a thing as specific correlations that stand up??
> ***************************************************
>
> Ron,
>
> Sure, there are applications that are totally quantifiable:
>
> In the case of Stochastics and RSI, usually you are talking about
> *divergence* rather than Correlation (Oscillators measure momentum
> and try to determine weakness and strength relative to buying and
> seling pressure.)
>
> Example Mechanical Stochastic:
>
> Rules:
>
> IF SlowD and FastK are greater than OB level
> AND FastK is greater than SlowD
> THEN impending selling condition exists.
>
> IF impending selling condition exists
> THEN begin
>
> IF FastK crosses under SlowD
> THEN Sell on the open.
>
> For BUY signals use the OS level and look for the FastK to cross
> over the SlowD from below.
>
> A more sophisticated trading model can be built pretty quickly by
> adding filters for more complex divergences (Like looking for a
> series of divergent OB/OS peaks or troughs in price versus the
> Stoch, and/or filters that measure strength of trend and state of
> market (trending or non-trending etc.), or looking for "confirmation"
> of a SELL signal by stipulating that the FastK must also violate the
> OB level to the downside....etc.
>
> Regarding Astronomical signals and objective correlation, the
> subject can become complex very quickly.
>
> A QUICK AND DIRTY ASTRONOMY PRIMER.
>
> We'll assume that we don't have time to adequately study
> astronomical relationships based on aspect, opposition,
> angle and their subsets.
>
> The only approach we can take, is to apply a "quantifiable mean"
> In other words, we'll find the average, or points of intersection of
> ALL planetary phenomena.
>
> Here's some sneaky thoughts on how to do it:
>
> LUNAR ASPECT
>
> Phases of the Moon are totally quantifiable, and usable.
> As the nearest planet it is logical to assume it's immediate effect on
> the markets(people) may be greater than more subtle planetary occurences.
>
> TIDAL CHARTS:
>
> Once again, totally quantifiable, also having the benefit of natural
> incorporation of influences of Sun and other planetary bodies. (To
> a certain degree.).
>
> CIRCADIAN RHYTHM
>
> This is the organic "clock" by which all biological organisms
> operate. We wake, sleep and reach emotional and physical
> highs and lows based on this rhythm. If one asserts that all
> humans and events are, to a certain extent, controlled by the
> planets, and that this trait is endemic all the way down to the
> molecular level, then circadian rhythm may well represent the
> astronomical "mean" of all that affects us.
>
> Lunar Cycle: 28 days (on average)
> Tidal Cycle: Hourly, or taking only High and Ebb tides.
> Circadian Cycles:
> Physical Cyce: 23 days
> Emotional Cycle: 28 days
> Mental Cycle: 33 days
>
> With the quantifiable means, traders can now build indicators such
> as cyclical oscillators. From there, it's just a matter of testing 'em
> through various filters for market correlations. (Remember, you're
> not dealing with an indicator that is "price driven" here, so you'll
> need a starting point for the study. It's probably best to set the
> cyclical starting point to the date that the market first started trading,
> or the date of what you feel is an historic astronomical occurrence.)
>
> Again, this is an extremely simplistic approach, and is not meant to
> replace more complex study of astronomical market correlations.
>
> Also, Ron you are confusing *astrology* and *astronomy*. :)
> Astology is the somewhat subjective use of the Zodiac to
> determine future circumstance based on planetary alignment
> at date of birth. Astronomy is the mathematical interpretation of
> the planets as they move, and their mathematical relation to
> each other. It is a very beautiful and exact mathematical science.
NW: Correction: Astrology is defined as the correlation of extra-terrestrial
phenomena withterrestrial phenomena.
NW: And speaking of subjective, don't you think that stating the opinion that
Astronomy is
"a very beautiful and exact mathematical science" is a a subjective judgment?
One man's science
is another man's aesthetic.
> Objectively,
Norman
>
>
>
> Predominately, I trade based on filters I have developed that
> observe human psychology. No planetary filters. All psych and
> quantifiable math. Yet, Norm and I have wound up looking at
> the same markets at the same time so often, that it would
> be foolish to say that there isn't some quantifiable connection.
>
> Walt Downs
> CIS Trading
|