Krelian99 wrote:Darkdoji, very nice and interesting so far, but what should be the goal of this thread?  I use a M5 and a M1 chart of one pair to see the price action on the lower tf as confirmation on the M5 chart.
An example is the following hammer candle in H1 and what they look like on the lower tfs:

 

But that isn't really what you want, if I understand you correctly. When you take an academic book or paper you read the Introduction and the Conclusion first. Most of the papers and Theses I read where useless for my goals and I also always take a look on the results, but here we have none of that but the first part of the methodology. So we can't discuss or help or whatever.

Darkdoji wrote:Hi Krelian99,Thank you for your direct and useful question. My primary goal is to share the views in the slides and have colleagues like you, introvert the key points and the knowledge on offer as a first step. Secondly, my hope was that the points contained in the slide share would evoke all sorts of comments and expressions which will lead to useful exchanges among colleagues. third, and as you can see I have posted two technical (i.e. mathematical) concepts related to the topic which traders can try out for the experience and the knowledge they provide or consider in forum (as would be the case with the Mandelbrot connection post). Multifractal analysis is not a strategy in trading (TA or otherwise) but a Methodology and if you trade by Multifractal analysis you may not necessarily persist in your current strategy because it allows a holistic view rather than partial views of the iterations we call price movement (TA is some sort of linearizion of the chaotic space) – as such and even now, one might contemplate the benefits of Multifractal analysis relative to TA and FA. At some point ahead, the discussions may progress to what kind of tools (indicators) would be appropriate for an approach like that and of course, there is no place better to discuss such issues than here with great coders like Mladen and mr. tools around. Of course, it is unusual to discuss TA or FA in this way because they are supposedly  “established” methodologies which few people question. But in this case, it would be interesting for instance to review the notion of fractals as espoused by Bill Williams and his indicators and the completely different way () in which fractals have been described in the chaology. I understand and appreciate your technique or strategy and may in the course of discussions highlight a view – but this is not (to my mind) a strategy thread as such so for now I shall merely note it and wait for an opportune time to share my thoughts if any. Finally, sir, if you have an alternative approach or definition of an aim for  the thread you think might be more welcome  or useful to members – I am certainly open to considering it – so long as it does not lead away from the primary aim of announcing the existence of a new and valid methodology and the spreading of what it is technically (i.e. mathematically) and how it differs from TA and FA.Many thanks

PS: This is like a discussion about for instance what TA is, what it's theoretical foundations are, and what it takes to get a good hang.

Darkdoji wrote:Sure Krelian99,

Nice views you have there, of course those are your views and I am not in any position at all to contend with anything you have said. However, what we have put out here has nothing to do with theorizing properly considered, but I can only respond to specifics. You of course appear to have had no time to look at any of the stuff on offer or consider their implications so it is tough for me to follow your thinking. Playing the chaos game for instance is not theoretical and doing so allows an experience that informs directly about how the market actually works. I really have nothing else to suggest. But thank you for your positive engagement - I am not interested in indicators - I am interested mainly in exactly how price moves and timing moves for direction and range as accurately as possible - that is what Multifractal analysis offers.

Cheers

Darkdoji wrote:Not quite Krelian99,

Elliot Waves is simply based on the idea of statically mapping the Dow psychological waves nothing more - in fact the concept of fractals is dynamical and as such I will scoff at the idea of Elliot Waves being fractals in the scientific sense (if that is what you are suggesting). Also we have gone way beyond pictures of leaves in explaining the concept of fractals and chaos as it directly applies to the markets and can now tell you things that will make your eyes dance within their hold. For instance "everything moves in waves" you say, but fractals move by a specific kind of wave and that is crucial. But I guess you want to know nothing new being certain you know it all (at least with respect to the topic). There are many persons like you in the world in fact who by the same strain of reasoning you have exhibited here (before checking out a fresh perspective) declare the adequacy of their current states with regard to completely new ideas and that is why the diffusion of innovation follows a normal curve. Of course given that this is a profit making business we are all engaged in - there is a chance you fall in to the category of laggards in the diffusion concept. This simply means you will later come to learn from this very thread (may be three or five years from now) what you could have learned now, when the performance of others relay to you that you are behind the times in the knowledge of how the market works. But that is the way of life and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Frankly though we are not about leaves and or the misapplication of the scientific notion of fractals. I hope you appreciate.

Cheers

BTW: The strategy you show for yourself here is an attempt to cope with a specific property of chaotic variables we discuss in terms of non-monotonic evolution. Have you defended against that fully or only partially? Well I guess you will never know and I can only smile.