Quote Originally Posted by ;
I re-read your post and I feel a bit of beer and bad reading comprehension on my part is what you're studying


yes I agree with you 100%, you can't have a random chart with outside subjectively enforced chart patterns....so which DOES say something about the validity of the chart patterns on random information.


HAVING SAID which is not so much the chart patterns however the momentum loss in the urge waves that may be the important thing because yields are not random, and there's something logical about price movement which aligns with systemic shocks...
I am not'worried' about your tone, so it was that I was'confused' about everything you're trying to say since it read like you consented but seemed like you didn't. However, you have cleared that up.

I didn't, and do not, anticipate this to be a large dialogue or anything. I was just planning to toss out this first post and be done with it, and I am merely procrastinating at the moment with those further articles.

What I was getting-at is that people attribute chart patterns as evidence that charts are not random. Look, a support line retains being admired, chart patterns are self-reinforcing or another version of the which is history repeats itself, etc.. After this someone like me will chime-in and retort with randomly created charts will even reveal indiions of the chart patterns you attribute to a expected'order' in the charts, which means that your legitimate chart shows precisely the very same patterns as a random chart.

But, is either really the point? Does this really matter whether a fictitious chart has patterns in it, or a random chart also has the very same patterns in it, if in the meantime nobody can actually create a made-up chart which also DOESN'T demone these exact same patterns? I am saying that it's a weak argument for people to claim chart patterns are man-made, or chart patterns are self-reinforcing, or history repeats itself, etc etc, if you can not even loe or make a chart that doesn't have these exact same patterns! There is not really any point arguing with people with the stance that random charts have those patterns, when really, ALL charts have those patterns. You can not even earn a chart that doesn't have those patterns. Chart patterns are the weakest evidence of order in a chart when every chart MUST have those patterns!

That which IS perhaps interesting to folks like you and me is the randomness / non-randomness of volatility, but not the'chart patterns'.

As for how I deduced D as the genuine chart.... Well, I had 1 5 (unless I counted wrong), so there's that. Plus, I've looked at a lot... no, let me try this. I've looked at A! @#ING LOT of charts and spent more hours than I care to admit taking a look at charts, so maybe that had some element to it.

At the conclusion D only looked like a true chart to me personally. It was marginally more random, in its own unique way, compared to the others. It seemed like every other chart I've ever seen, whereas the others not so much.

Now you'll probably say it was not really D.