ImpLaNT wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:25 pm
Just a thought. If you open up Orbit what would you find? Some genius mathematical equation? No not at all ----> you will find just the very indicators everyone employs with lookbacks fitted as we have in so-called "technical" tools. But I talk functions, matrices, vectors, topology, and all the mathematical razz you can imagine. That is why those that may have broken into the code (which you say is about a 2 hour job), are just plain stupid. Touch any of those lookbacks and the tool is toast.
So where is the math? The math is in my head. The genius is in the way I used the math to visualize the market (leaning heavily on Mandelbrot), and then using the math again to arrange those same indicators you will find in Orbit to define analogues setups that emulate a recursive equation exactly. First, I am a trader working for trading as a chaotist. This means I learnt to trade as good as anyone on the planet. How many mathematicians trade? The market is real and not a space you employ symbological manipulations of mathematics to read market dynamics. You would require that to try to "predict" the market as Mandelbrot did in his famous fractal model of markets. Which BTW Wall Street rejects to this day because it upturned (especially for MBA's), all they had been taught, and second it is pretty tough stuff to grasp. His aim he said was to show how risky the market was and to therefore bring some sanity into the process of forecasting ala Wall Street (reduce the risk).
But I read Mandelbrot as trader NOT a Wall Street analyst and I thought that if in fact chaos is correct then no point predicting anything -- and I also felt it is not analysts (who are mostly morons anyhow - I know, I have been one professionally in oil), that one should target but traders. Though often regarded as intellectually destitute and given to gambling, traders are in fact the real risk takers frontline. And hence Orbit is designed to read (please mark and underline read) and communicate with the trader in real-time. Reading market dynamics mathematically is very different from employing symbological mathematics to predict markets. So what I know, and have done, and can show mathematics of my work and the market is original. So for example how do you find amplitude with common "technical" indicators? You use the Fisher Transform? No Ehler already did - in analogy you need to class fluctuations into scales (fractals do not forget are infinitely complex), e.g. 4 or 5 layers out and apply Kinematic Similitude such that all levels or scales shape and time exactly the same across the X and Y dimensions and so that where they all coincide and in the time they do you measure a stop. Now how many more such things have we done? I honestly cannot count.
But whatever anyone picks now as "the lookback" in Orbit they are wasting their time and once out from the cloud they MUST abandon the theft and trade with the real deal (which is why the cloud is so fundamental it is the only way we can do what we want). I am not a fool at all I told you this before yea that I am not a fool for sharing so openly knowing the antics of the simple minded. So I may be compromised by trying to share and encourage understanding but hardly bothered. Regardless, you may ask but why is such an application (as in finding amplitude), needed given we already can trade back to back wins with my MT4 version- which fact in and of itself is already a blow out? Well, I did say that we would like to take profit maxima each time in the cloud version and that is a part of the scheme. So I agree it is too risky. Thank you, been thinking because on the one hand I must find a way for people to understand what it is we are saying but on the other there are in fact real limits. But be sure I will do that somehow especially by showing trades in enough detail. I am passionate because it is incredible what we did and running out of time is my only real worry.
(-_-)
PS: Most "technical" indicators are broadly speaking functions and it is what they are made to represent that matters so the fact that something is a "technical" indicator is less important than what you make each and and all represent in a model is the issue.