Hot Pick Of The Day

[spikefader]

Spike, your B is still not labeled correctly. The pattern is showing an expanded flat correction wave. See figure 17 in this link for an explanation:

http://www.elliottwave.net/education...ts/basics3.htm

You wanna convert me dontcha Dave hehe
Fuzzy EW doesn't need to cover expanded flat correctives. That's gettin' way too teknikul and unfuzzy! jeje

[DSteckler]

Sorry, Spike, and I mean you no disrespect but your fuzzy EW is a rationalization for your not really grasping Elliott Wave theory. You can't label waves as you see fit just to fit your notion of what and how they should be labelled.

I'm not saying what you're doing doesn't work because you've proven time and again that it does. But it isn't EW. Call it SW Theory - Spike Wave Theory <BG>.

[spikefader]

Sorry, Spike, and I mean you no disrespect but your fuzzy EW is a rationalization for your not really grasping Elliott Wave theory. You can't label waves as you see fit just to fit your notion of what and how they should be labeled.

I'm not saying what you're doing doesn't work because you've proven time and again that it does. But it isn't EW. Call it SW Theory - Spike Wave Theory <BG>.

Well thank you Dave...for the props that whatever I'm doing, whatever it's called, actually works! I knew one day you might just see the light hehehehe, and yours a confirmation I will likely remember for a while, especially since you laffed at it in the beginning.

Ya know, I am going to seriously think about your suggestion to rename it to SW Theory. I remember posting the question months ago and several people here said don't rename it and so I didn't. But I probably should (and make a detailed explanation of every rule and fuzzy parameter so it's all completely accountable). That way I will avoid being labeled in the way that you have in your comment; someone who doesn't understand something sufficiently and is merely rationalizing it by calling it 'fuzzy'.

To drill down on your observation, I googled terms and find:

define:notion - an odd or fanciful or capricious idea; a vague idea in which confidence is placed
define:capricious - freakish (changeable), impulsive and whimsical (determined by chance rather than by necessity or reason)

Now is fuzzy counting odd? Yes, to many it might be. Funny, curious, peculiar? Perhaps.

Is fuzzy counting fanciful? Is it imaginary, imagined, notional (not based on fact; dubious)? No, it is not. It is done within parameters that are repeatable and accountable, admittedly within limits that exceed those set in stone by formal EWers, but yet it is still based on fact and therefore is valid and not dubious.

Is fuzzy counting capricious? Is it freakish (changeable), impulsive and whimsical (determined by chance rather than by necessity or reason)? To a degree it may be changeable, but formal EWers have alternate counts so it loses no validity there. Is it impulsive or determined by chance over reason? No. It is fully 'reasoned'. For price movement must fit within distinct parameters to qualify as a good and worthwhile count. It is not something I "make up" according to my whimsical creativity. But that said, it may well be an 'interpretation' or 'creative art' to make a fuzzy count. One probably should be able to think outside the box....while formal EWers arguably think inside the box.

The fact of the matter is that partial truth theory (fuzzy logic) has much merit in our world, and that type of logic has led to more efficient and successful systems, and improvements in the quality of our lives in so many ways. The fact of the matter is that I do not have to understand EW theory fully in order to have a valid spin-off simplified theory that is a relative to EW. It's not "a notion", or "my notion (limited understanding)" about EW that I'm trying to fit my counting to; but rather Fuzzy Logic Counting is a "theory" all by itself. To be sure, let's look at the definition of "theory":

"A theory is an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. Theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses.

Yes, I think it's a theory and not a notion.

But anyway Dave, no disrespect taken today. Truthfully, it's never been a "rationalization" because I don't grasp EW theory, but it's always been about a sweeping "simplification" of rules that I (perhaps stubbornly and arrogantly) don't agree with.

And it's obviously much to the frustration and annoyance of formal EW believers. I know it's bothered some from the very start......and Dave you were quick to ridicule it when you first got here, inferring I'm just making it up as I go along rather than seeing the value in removing stuffy and presumptuous rules and applying the very valid form of logic known as "fuzzy logic" (partial truth theory) to find simple 12345abc setups to trade off and make money. Formal EWers say all price action is countable, and I say not only that it isn't, but it isn't worth trying.

Now I'm a humble man and I don't know it all and don't try to convince anyone of that. But I'm smart enough to know what has merit and what doesn't, and what is efficient and what is not. Formal EW isn't efficient and isn't easy. And formal EW, to my mind, doesn't have the merit that fuzzy counting has; most notably highlighted by the worth of knowing where a Fuzzy C happens to be, and the often consequential impulsive move away from a Fuzzy C, whatever the direction.

To wrap up, I didn't decide to call it Fuzzy EWing because of my limited EW knowledge; I decided to call it Fuzzy EWing because I always believed the 'recognition' for the pattern should stay with the 'discoverer' of EW Theory. But you've just about convinced me to take a separate and distinct "name credit" for it. I hope nobody then accuses me of stealing a concept and naming it after myself!

Best to all.

[skiracer]

I have to take exception to this. Don't you think that any explicit theory should have set parameters or guidelines that it works within. How can you take Elliot Wavy Theory or any proven theory and rationalize the guidelines or rules governing it to make it work for yourself and then call it a theory. EW Theory is based on a concept that works with Fibonacci ratios and the waves movements are based on those ratios. It works however it works an only then because those ratios work. To bastardize the theory to make it fit the way you want it to work without setting any specific parameters or guidelines isn't anywhere near where Elliot Wave Theory is coming from. And without those specific definitions it then just becomes anyones ideal of what a good setup might be and call it a theory and give it another name. What sets Elliot Wave Theory apart from any old concept is that there are specific rules and guidelines that is has to hold to. Changing those guidelines doesn't make something else a theory but just some adlib of the real theory an it's identity to suit any occasion you want it to fit. Call it what you want but it is nowhere near the same thing an is not anywhere near a proven concept.

[New-born baby]

Great PARL news!

Here's some great PARL news!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060705/parlux_nasdaq.html?.v=1

[spikefader]

I have to take exception to this. Don't you think that any explicit theory should have set parameters or guidelines that it works within. How can you take Elliot Wavy Theory or any proven theory and rationalize the guidelines or rules governing it to make it work for yourself and then call it a theory. EW Theory is based on a concept that works with Fibonacci ratios and the waves movements are based on those ratios. It works however it works an only then because those ratios work. To bastardize the theory to make it fit the way you want it to work without setting any specific parameters or guidelines isn't anywhere near where Elliot Wave Theory is coming from. And without those specific definitions it then just becomes anyones ideal of what a good setup might be and call it a theory and give it another name. What sets Elliot Wave Theory apart from any old concept is that there are specific rules and guidelines that is has to hold to. Changing those guidelines doesn't make something else a theory but just some adlib of the real theory an it's identity to suit any occasion you want it to fit. Call it what you want but it is nowhere near the same thing an is not anywhere near a proven concept.

Yes, of course a theory must have set parameters and guidelines. Fuzzy counting does have rules/parameters/guidelines. I thought a picture (or scores of charts) is worth a thousand words. If one looks closely at all the fuzzy counts I've done one should realize what the parameters are. Ski, you surely can't be saying that there isn't consistency with what I'm doing....it's the same thing over and over again. It's common sense. It's human interpretation of things of significance to leverage for success. Sure I make it work for myself by allowing fuzziness into a wave count and restrict the counting to 12345abc....but the pattern must still show itself in the chart for me to label it. It's not just randomness. It's clear and you can see each move from 1 through 5 and the abc with either higher highs or candles that show the move occurred within a shorter time frame. One day I might attempt to write down specifics and post for everyone's approval and acceptance hehe.

But what I'm actually doing is following the EW broad principle, and I've always given credit to Elliott as the genius "discoverer". So I've modified the rules to serve the necessity of simplicity in trading and therefore it's no longer EW theory is it? It's a new theory. You call it bastardization, a word that implies I'm doing something that debases or corrupts. Am I corrupting/spoiling/tainting EW theory? Of course not. EW Theory is always going to be and I'm not and have never attempted to discredit EW theory. I've always supported it just like any other form of TA. What I've created is something unique and simple, related but different, and just because it is simple and altered theory doesn't mean it can't qualify as a theory on it's own. It has to be viewed with an open mind, just like Fuzzy Logic when it first came on the scene had to be viewed with an open mind.

Many intelligent scholars and professors strongly opposed that too...some still do I'm sure. But it's being applied successfully in our world. From a slow beginning, fuzzy logic grew in applications and importance, until now it is a significant concept worldwide. Personal computer based fuzzy logic control is pretty amazing. It lets novices build control systems that work in places where even the best mathematicians and engineers, using conventional approaches to control, cannot define and solve the problem. In Japan, a professor built a fuzzy logic control system that will fly a helicopter with one of the rotor blades off! Human helicopter pilots cannot do that. And, the Japanese went further and built a fuzzy logic controlled subway that is as smooth as walking in your living room. In the United States, fuzzy logic control is gaining popularity, but is not as widely used as in Japan, where it is a multi-million dollar industry focussed on maximizing control, system effectiveness and efficiency, something everyone should want out of their trades.

I've read that conventional pre-fuzzy real-time control systems generally are smooth and linear in performance, but still sometimes encounter aberrations or discontinuous conditions, something that does not make good scientific sense and cannot be predicted by a formula, but it's there. If this happens, the fuzzy logic method helps us visualize a solution, put the solution in words and translate to "If - Then" statements, thereby obtaining the desired result. Applied to trading, I'm looking at the "If - Then" mentality. If X happens I'll do Y. And fuzzy counting merely looks to find the simplest method of applying a fantastic concept of Wave Theory. Fuzzy logic control makes use of human common sense, applied from what seems reasonable considering certain good results acheived through human experience.

And you know what's hilarious folks? Some of the greatest minds in the technical world try to explain to others why fuzzy logic works, and other great technical minds contend that fuzzy logic is a "cop out" (Dave and Ski perhaps). The experts really "go at" each other. But, for plain folks the fact is fuzzy logic does work, seems to work better than many expensive and complicated systems and is understandable and affordable. Why can't the same be true when applying fuzzy logic to complicated traditional conventional EW Theory? Fact is that it can be. Partial truth counting speaks for itself. It's uncanny how volatile the C area can be, and plenty of examples. It's possibly the best example of how "support is only support until it isn't", as proven a concept in trading as anything can be.

I'm not trying to sell anything here Ski and Dave; I'm giving it away lol You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink I guess. I'll tell you this from the horses mouth: a Fuzzy C is worth knowing about. Order of importance falls from monthly, weekly, daily then hourly, just like every other pattern in the book. I guess to make believers out of you I'd better show you the written guidelines and not just charts. lol Maybe until it's proven I should abandon "Fuzzy EW counting" and call it "Capricious Charting" or "Whimsical Waving" lol

Thanks for prompting the thoughts Ski. Best to ya.

(in writing the above I've used material from http://www.fuzzy-logic.com/Ch2.htm)

[DSteckler]

<< Why can't the same be true when applying fuzzy logic to complicated traditional conventional EW Theory? Fact is that it can be. >>

Except that what you're doing has nothing to do with fuzzy logic, Spike.

FL is a "If X and Y then Z" approach to solving control problems. EW in fact incorporates this: IF a stock moves from 7 to 10 AND retraces back to 8.85 (a 38.2% retracement), followed by a move above 10, THEN it completed Waves 1 and 2 and has started on Wave 3.

The problem is that your Fuzzy EW has no logic rules. You decide to label waves, whether impulse or correction, wherever you see fit. That's the flaw in your methodology.

[spikefader]

Except that what you're doing has nothing to do with fuzzy logic, Spike.

lol that's a good one What I'm doing is much about partial truths and fuzzy logic. Try another angle dude lol that one ain't close to being accurate.

FL is a "If X and Y then Z" approach to solving control problems. EW in fact incorporates this: IF a stock moves from 7 to 10 AND retraces back to 8.85 (a 38.2% retracement), followed by a move above 10, THEN it completed Waves 1 and 2 and has started on Wave 3.

With respect Dave, I think you better go back to Fuzzy Logic school hehe . It is much much more than "If X and Y then Z". And strictly speaking, formal EW is more based on Classical Logic, which consists of a formal (or informal) language together with a deductive system and/or a model-theoretic semantics. You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic and learn about concepts of Set Theory (mathematical theory of sets that provides language in which mathematical objects are described, and EW would be an example of set theory) and then Fuzzy Sets (an extension of Set Theory). "In classical set theory the membership of elements in relation to a set is assessed in binary terms according to a crisp condition; an element either belongs or does not belong to the set. By contrast, fuzzy set theory permits the gradual assessment of the membership of elements in relation to a set" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set. So your definition of "If X and Y then Z" doesn't go nearly far enough.

Fuzzy Logic is much about partial truths or degree of truth and was/is very much a paradigm shift away from Classic Logic. "Fuzzy logic in the narrow sense is symbolic logic with a comparative notion of truth developed fully in the spirit of classical logic (syntax, semantics, axiomatization, truth-preserving deduction, completeness, etc.; both propositional and predicate logic). It is a branch of many-valued logic based on the paradigm of inference under vagueness." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-fuzzy/ It is more than "If X and Y then Z" Dave. It is reasoning that is approximate rather than precisely deduced from classical predicate logic.

To truly understand what I'm doing you must understand these things, and accept that in applying fuzzy logic to wave counting it is permissible to break formal EW rules and/or to only partially meet them; for price action to be partially true relative to the broader Elliott Wave Theory. The reasoning is justified by human common sense interpretation of what CAN be productive or improves control over a trade. If you can't accept that it is OK to break EW rules or partially satisfy them, then you'll never comprehend and accept the concept of Fuzzy Counting.

The problem is that your Fuzzy EW has no logic rules. You decide to label waves, whether impulse or correction, wherever you see fit. That's the flaw in your methodology.

There you go again; broadly asserting something to be true when it is false. I don't label as I see fit; my counting does have logical rules (you may not see or understand them), and my methodology isn't flawed. What might be flawed however is your understanding of fuzzy logic and how I'm applying it to counting. Research it; let it sink in; ponder and reflect on the simplicity of it and what I'm attempting to do rather than critically object and attempt to discredit using false assumptions of fact.

[New-born baby]

7/7/06

Today's hot picks:
1. Buy almost any gold stock. Gold headed (probably) much higher from here over next six weeks.

2. S&P headed to 'crisis' point soon. By that I mean it is coming to the crossroads where incredible resistance meets the trend. If S&P holds the trend, formidible resistance now becomes support and the market will zoom higher. If not, the bull trend of the market now becomes bear trend. We will know for sure in a few weeks. I'd say its only a 10% chance continuing the bull, esp. since the NAZ was rejected by resistance.

3. Silver up against strong resistance, too. It could bust it, and should bust it, if gold heads North as expected.

4. I'm still liking my coal: BTU and ACI, although I expect BTU and ACI to pull back today. Note: BTU is the leader; ACI the laggard. Sometimes I use the leader to indicate the daily direction of the laggard.

[skiracer]

Spike,
If it is working for you then that's what counts. I think you understood what I was talking about as far as developing or working with a developed concept or theoy and specific rules, guidelines, and parameters. We all see things from different perspectives but that shouldn't limit our open mindedness to anything new and worthwhile. I wasn't saying not to keep your take on it coming. I would be a hyprcrite since I do use your ideas, charts, and setups, especially the fuzzy C moves, in my own trading. There is nothing wrong with developing and trying new avenues of analysis from existing theory. I really didn't know that "fuzzy logic, as a field or term even existed until these posts so now I'm already ahead of the game in that respect. I would never say to stop what you are doing because it didn't fit the within the exact scope of what your taking it from. As far as the bastardization term. Perhaps the wrong word to use Spike. Didn't mean it derrogatory at all. What would be good would be to develope a set of guidelines that differentiate the parameters between your fuzzy take and the actual theory. But don't stop or limit what you are doing. I never meant it that way. Ed

[Peter Hansen]

Hot Tip ISIG .....Loooooook Out

Short and sweet ISIG ........watch this one!
Have a great day NB and all !

[DSteckler]

<< my counting does have logical rules (you may not see or understand them), and my methodology isn't flawed. >>

Then explain it. Without peer review of methodology anyone can assert anything and never be incorrect.

Fuzzy logic is a "If X and Y then Z" rule based system.

http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/mar98/fuz/fl_part1.html#WHAT%20IS%20FUZZY%20LOGIC?

[New-born baby]

Isig

Short and sweet ISIG ........watch this one!
Have a great day NB and all !

This stock has a higher trajectory than the space shuttle. Thanks for the post

[New-born baby]

Parl

Okay you gamblers who like the smell of Paris Hilton's perfume. PARL is currently trading at $9, which qualifies as a double bottom. A buy here, with a stop at $8.75, gives you a risky entry in a risky stock. Hey, you want safety? Go buy a safety belt, or trade a stock with an option chain. After all, Paris is not exactly a safe girl.

Just for Lye's sake, I put a buy order in at $8.99, and we'll see how sorry I am for it later.

EDIT: I am in at $8.99. I also set the stop at $8.75 because $8.76 was the ultra bottom on the last touch.

PARL:OUT the door at Spike's admonition yesterday at $9.06 per share, earning $5 on my 100 shares.

[New-born baby]

Imcl

OUCH! IMCL falling off the table this morning.