Darkdoji wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:08 am I find this very interesting on many fronts and will certainly give an important view. This is because it presents me with a good opportunity to locate the Orbit logic in our thinking when we trade by Orbit. Any time we fail to do that, we miss the point and gain a risk of losing (or winning less than we can). Hakan is an amazing coder the tool is perfect really smooth. If I were to be employing elements of Ichimoku in my thinking I would use only his tool it is exceptional. I know this because it fits Orbit exactly and so adds no additional information to the model. Of course the aesthetics of Ichimoku standard or Hakan (i.e. by aesthetics I mean the functionality of reminding a trend), is another matter. For example, @ImpLaNT admits he is unable to trade Orbit at all. Or to no degree of which he is proud to announce at this point. Yet he shows the solution to his own very problem on the Screenface with the Ichimoku live and direct. It amazes me that a trader can be so egocentric as to become blind to such a simple solution and one that has always been available to him. Of course again it will not be true that this is true of @ImpLaNT alone so I would like to say more about what I mean above but I am preoccupied at this time with other things. I will come back in a day or two.

(-_-)

I'm very glad that you liked the indicator. It is actually very good and it alone is enough to work profitably. But notice that I said that this is only part of one of the projects. This suggests that there are other parts (indicators) that are no less good. Taken together, they give a very good "system" that can give a fairly high win rate. But that's not enough for me. And, just for your information, this indicator was not developed by Hakan, he adapted it and corrected some technical issues so that it interacts normally with other indicators. My goal was not a high winning percentage, but rather the development of a “system” that would be flawless. This is exactly the goal I strove for with a small group of like-minded people. They know how much different material I shoveled, how many different things and methods I tried. In the end, I succeeded in a lot, but not everything I wanted.
I have always believed that the problem can be solved on the basis of a mathematical approach. And then you appear and declare that you solved this problem through chaotic mathematics. At first I didn’t believe it, but later I suggested - why not? You made a statement that Orbit gives a win rate of 100/100 and repeated this endlessly. I started studying your approach. I spent a lot of time on this and I don’t regret it because it also has its very rational moments. I told you this personally, I’ll tell it to a wider audience... A trader needs SIGNALS in order to enter and exit trades. What you call complete control over the situation is those very SIGNALS. And if your “system” gives you 100/100 correct quality signals, it means that you have complete control, which is what you wrote about many times. The trader needs the exact moment of entry and absolutely does not care what theories lie behind these signals. I studied a lot on this forum and not only on this one. But I did it in silent mode, I began to write something again only in your thread. I took a lot of ideas from Xard, for which I thank him very much, I took something from other people, including from your approach too. I liked the theory behind your approach. This is the first time I’ve seen such a dense theory after well known Elliott Theory and it’s great. But mind you, none of the big enough people here and not only here have ever spoken about the correctness of their approach in 100/100 cases, except you. I didn't get 100/100, I don't think anyone here did. And at the moment I no longer believe that it can be obtained.
As you rightly noticed, the indicator that I placed here practically does all the work of Orbit. Imagine what the whole template can do... But it doesn’t give 100/100.
I will also tell you that, unlike Orbit, my work will not be published anywhere or ever, because I did it for myself and those few people who helped me in my work. And we don’t need any investors or other “leftist” people because...if the “system” works, then it makes money. You can turn $100 into a million in a year if you actually have something truly valuable in your asset.

ImpLaNT wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 2:24 am

So you come clean now that you "befriended" me and called me "Master" ala Judas on false pretenses because you needed to get close enough to find the "secrets" of Orbit? That is why you went through all that false routine for all this time? I tell you from my mind it was not worth it and cannot be worth it for any human being of character whichever way you kick it - the end does not always justify the means. Because in the process what you were doing was to betray trust and of course lose the respect of those who trusted you forever. They now regard you correctly as not worthy of trust. I think that is sad. But be that as it may and like I said correctly you are egocentric and I can assure you that unless you open up to show others the respect they show you (respect by the way is defined as mutual consideration), you are going nowhere I know because I have seen this path to abject failure several times in my life. People are far more important than the individual and though we start off thinking everyone for himself and God for us all, the same God suggests you should be your brothers keeper. I am not really interested in "technical" systems as you know because they incorporate very partial information so I can understand why in spite of the technical excellence of Hakan (whom I will work with soon or at least that is my plan), you admit that your "system" is the same as any other and apart from the confidence you have (knowing exactly how it was made), you get only average results which is in fact more than good enough anywhere. Most people get far less than that which is why they keep seeking new "systems."

But let me explain something THERE IS NO "SYSTEM" ON EARTH that approximates Orbit. Nothing in trading can because nothing in trading comprehends the market equation and it takes more than signals (far, far more) to get to control. So in the end you got nothing more from me (in spite of all that false routine), that you could use beyond what I have shared publicly here because unlike you I deeply respect others and take their trust to be bond. So congratulations, but lets be clear there is nothing I shared with you that is not in the public domain and what is in the public has no means of informing your "system". Your "system" must still rely on Orbit if you are to make even average gain and I know you are smart enough (in the sense of self-loving enough), to know that. So do not give me that crap about 100% wins when you cannot trade. I get 100% wins and wins depend on the trader not the tool. The tool is rated correct 100/100 times (it is a mathematical model), but if you take a stupid turn per some given opportunity (which we all do from time to time), that is your own business not Orbits since Orbit will always point you correctly. The issue requires intellectual depth to address and not this way you are going about it. No you have to prove it and you cannot in a million years show proof that Orbit pointed you wrongly at any point. So stop bad mouthing a good thing and sounding like a person who has such credibility among others that his word is science. Not so and not after the above. The last person to try to prove such an absurdity was @regit your good friend but you saw how woefully he failed. He actually took a cash trade and waited (even after Orbit had instructed a turn), to lose and then he came screaming. But I was on him and when I explained what dastardly steps he took to get his 1 millisecond of fame he has remained ashamed of himself ever since (apart from the fact of stealing my books), and so much so, he is ashamed to participate in the thread (and now only appends his name to posts he thinks somehow are bad for me). So my good former friend a) do not bad mouth Orbit when we say 100/100 times we mean that number exactly and it requires intellectual considerations to disprove. b) Orbit is NOT a "system" and compares with nothing you have so stop any comparisons they are not needed c) You will always depend on Orbit now and into the forever future regardless of your trading routine or "system" because it is what it is and so I expect you to be very much a part of this thread in the future since I know your "system" like all others gives you NO independence from Orbit. But of course you are welcome just as @regit remains in frequent welcome here.

(_-_)

To everybody, 2 things --------------> every once in a while the thread gets heated up with issues that have no apparent connection with learning Orbit the Tool and is indeed distractive. I do not apologise for that because it is often completely out of my control as can be seen from the latest example. It does appear however, that altruism in sharing trading knowledge is the wrong tack and that the best idea may be to leave people in as much ignorance as possible and simply use your advantages if you have any for yourself. That is of course not how my mind works and I do not subscribe to such nonsense in a market that counts more than $10 T/ per day turnover. There is more than enough for everyone and in fact there is no sense in which a single person (), can corner more than a relatively tiny portion of what is available for all, no matter the advantage such an individual holds. But beyond money wins, spreading the knowledge about chaos theory and fractal geometry is in fact more important to me than anything else and though sometimes frustrated by comments, attitudes and actions of some of the people I have come across I will persist to do that. I find the knowledge so liberating I could not sleep at night if I did not try to share it at all including leaving notes on this site for posterity.

The second point I wish to make, is that people can get confused by some of the assertions we make here and may not understand they relate to two different versions of the same tool. a) The Prototype tool is what we have in public circulation right now and it is also what I use and have to use to my chagrin. b) Then there is the Cloud version which is my ultimate goal. The prototype was originally designed to show investors what was meant by the Cloud Version and so while it has all the properties of the intended Cloud version it has not the same functionality as the Cloud Version as it lacks the technologies and environment for the delivery of some of the most amazing information and insights that knowledge of chaos allows to pass on to the trader as he trades. I believe implementation will change the way trading is done forever and of course few can imagine it because there is no simple way to share this vision. So it is important to keep these facts in mind in some of the unfortunate back and forth we have with people who for the life I me I did not know would exist in the context where a person simply wants to share knowledge around some common interest. I cannot apologise for their existence either as I have no control who comes to a trading forum and how such a mind works but I feel it is great pity some of what I have experienced so far. Sad.

So for the neutrals do keep the above in mind.

(-_-)

I told you what I said because you need to be able to respect the people with whom you work, or collaborate. As @WilliamB said, I did more for you in your thread than anyone else. At the same time, you don’t know who you are collaborating with, for you I was a new person, but this does not mean that I am a newbie or a fool here. The journey behind me is no less long than yours. It’s just that our paths are different, and we can reach our goals in different ways. The fact that I borrow something for my work does not mean that I am stealing someone's intellectual property. I work with what I find freely available and I believe that only in this way, that is, through joint efforts, can some result be achieved.
You initially position yourself as the sole God, with the only correct approach based on chaos. As you can already see, one indicator can compete with your instrument. But once again - your approach is good, I tell you this honestly. The bad thing is how you present it and what “cloudy” status you have elevated yourself to.
You always say, “We imagine, we show, etc..” There is no any WE, there is only YOU. And if you go this way further, and this is exactly what you will do, you will remain completely alone. Although once again, including for all the people in this thread, the approach is good, take a close look at some points that you should understand for yourself, there is a useful and rational grain here, you just need to open your eyes.

ImpLaNT wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:12 pm As you can already see, one indicator can compete with your instrument. But once again - your approach is good, I tell you this honestly.

I rest my case. You are far less discerning than I thought. You make me laugh. We could put that down to a poor translator but my comments to you are not that simple as to allow the very ignorant suggestion you make above. Read it again and again until you understand it and you will see why all this while you are unable to understand or use Orbit effectively (or indeed trade to a level reflective of your claimed experience with any tool at all Orbit or not). But I suggest that beyond this there is nothing to talk about on this topic anymore so lets rest it and allow everyone some space to pursue more serious things than your lack of a basic comprehension of my very basic statements - No Mas. Will no longer respond to you on this topic.

(-_-)

PS: You do not know my approach so you cannot say whether or not it is good or bad and therefore your opinion is an irrelevancy (when you can show 10 consecutive wins with Orbit let us know otherwise show us 10 consecutive wins using your "system" as an alternative premise to qualifying your opinion on anything Orbit). BTW: I showed you 30 with Orbit and on record on this thread so you check.

Darkdoji wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 1:26 pm PS: You do not know my approach so you cannot say whether or not it is good or bad and therefore your opinion is an irrelevancy (when you can show 10 consecutive wins with Orbit let us know otherwise show us 10 consecutive wins using your "system" as an alternative premise to qualifying your opinion on anything Orbit). BTW: I showed you 30 with Orbit and on record on this thread so you check.

They will show you elephants and monkeys in the circus. I don’t intend to show you anything. At this cheerful note I say goodbye to you. All the best!

ImpLaNT wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2023 2:00 pm They will show you elephants and monkeys in the circus. I don’t intend to show you anything. At this cheerful note I say goodbye to you. All the best!

Thank you - and just as I know - you cannot show anyone, anything, anywhere and I just wanted to point out to you that yes we allow free speech in trading but we base that somewhat on ability. Unless you can show in trades what you can do, you should curtail statements to what you can show (in this case nothing). The idea that you can speak authoritatively about trading to a public audience must be based on what you can show in your trading and that would be fair I think, right now you can show nothing so may be you should take the hint that your words mean nothing to us who know trading and traders.

(-_-)

“THE BLUE SCREEN OF TRADING DEATH”

I will use the total and sudden collapse of @ImpLaNT as a trader which we just witnessed as a case study to outline how anyone at all can fail as a trader as completely as we saw @ImpLaNT fail right before our eyes. This is completely without malice and as you will testify yourself (and as I believe he would himself after a while), when I present, it will be strictly an educational exercise for the benefit of all but an important exercise because I know he is not alone and that there are many tittering on the same edge from which he finally fell as a trader.

If you think about it a) His fall was not directly about Orbit but it was Orbit the Tool that made it stark to him (and as I will show), that he did not have trading in him. Ultimately, trading is for each and every one of us a test of character and faith in self and if you do not have those you MUST go down one day never to rise again regardless of past posing and posturing as a trader. Trading is an extremely difficult test of man to pass for this reason. b) Do not forget that in the end it is the trader and the trader alone that has to pull the trigger each time to buy or sell in range (except when we use a robot but we all know that if robots were such a solution we would be talking not about human trading but about which robot to best employ. I have built robots before and I know they do not help and I also know why). It is at the point of pulling the trigger that we are most tested as humans and it is the inability or ability to do so (pull the trigger), consistently that makes or breaks us as traders (please note I am not saying buy or sell correctly no, I am talking about the ability to pull the trigger at all at points indicated wrongly or rightly by any means we use as trade points so please note that). c) You must have heard of or know traders that say "we do not use indicators" and add "we trade by price action only". I am not one of them but they have a major point and we need to look at their point very closely to further understand a core issue about the ability and inability to consistently pull the trigger at trade points indicated to us by whatever means. Indicators are to most traders what lampposts are to drunks, support rather than illumination and as such a major factor in the complex mix that define whether or not we can consistently find the character and faith in self to consistently pull the trigger at trade points (since of course no indicator pulls the trigger by itself, it is the human trader who still has to do that regardless of the indicator employed).

I have promised that this is without affront to my former friend and I use his case only because we all know him and we all saw how it happened but may not understand why and may not realize that many of us are more or less at the same point at this time (especially when we try to trade by Orbit because it is 100% faultless as a trading tool and is never wrong so how is it possible to fail with it). I was @ImpLaNT’s mentor (as I am to several others), and as his tutor I watched him go through all the stages that led to his final collapse noting his difficulties and strengths but also the personality traits (which we all have), that interfered with his ability to fight off the psychological condition that has now irredeemably paralysed him as a trader (may be after my presentation he might see the light and still try but that is only if he has any fight left in him). Trading is EASY as a mechanical process (especially when described), but only if we first overcome the common psychological block around pulling the trigger and that is really tough business and I mean really tough. But how am I qualified to talk to you about this? Because I went through the same exact difficulty but I pull the trigger consistently NOW using Orbit the Tool (which as you will also see is the sanest solution to this psychological block). I am good enough now to be a pro whereas not so long ago I was a trader only in name just like my former friend @ImpLaNT.

But please give me a little while or may be the weekend since I trade to eat and this might take time putting together and I will like to make it count for all persons interested because ------> overcome the block today and you will feel a new lease of life not just in trading but in your very self. So all that Top Gun, Big Shot trader put on you see around with many on threads and in forums do not let that confuse you. Most of us have difficulties they would rather hide in fora than reveal. I mean my former friend was even talking about the merits of a tool he does not understand enough to win trades by and that could not save him from his fall (no fault of the tool though), and actually recommending it to others with the gusto of an expert. Can you believe that? But that is why we need this case study I think to examine all the factors that play into the scenario where we project expertise in public unjustified by our private reality (which in fact then interferes with the solution to our inabilities). The projected outcome of case study is to allow others admit the problem to themselves and see if by adopting the solution I will offer we can avoid the “Blue Screen of Trading Death”. This is why without affront to my former friend I feel this case presentation is absolutely critical.

Afraid (_-_) that others may soon fail.

OMG, how sick you are...
Who told you that I fell somewhere??? If I told you that I am no longer going to collaborate with you and somehow interact with your creation, this does not mean that there is something wrong with me. Bro, I'm fine. But what about you??? Think about how traders lived until you and Orbit appeared? In exactly the same way, I will continue to live and work, regardless of whether you create your "cloud" version or not, whether will it successful or not, I don’t care!
I showed you, as well as everyone who wanted to see, that your Orbit can be easily replaced with one simple indicator, which, firstly, looks simpler and more visual, and secondly, it is never repaint, unlike screenface elements. I’m not saying that this is enough for quality work, but I have the rest arsenal, so there’s no need to worry about me, I’m a grown boy and I’ll figure out what to do myself.
In general, you have a very bad character trait. You constantly appeal and mention the names of people who have not communicated with you for a long time and have stopped all contacts, as an example I can give @regit. Now you will be writing here for another half a year and mentioning something about me... You don’t need to do this, firstly, it’s unmanly, and secondly, it’s very incorrect and in some ways even mean.
Look at your thread... You're essentially having a conversation with yourself, with the exception of rare messages from other people. 80% of all messages are your messages. Look at the threads of other authors... Their share accounts for no more than 15-20%. Do you realize that you've been talking to yourself for a long time or do you still have to write a hundred pages before you realize it?

Ok you register an objection and as you have a right to. So I will still deliver without any mention of your direct case. Is that fine with you? If so I am sure everyone is happy.

(-_-)

PS: It will be very deep, as in incisive and interesting do keep a tab.