已更新

PRS DEMO: WHY SO MANY LINES?

Well, while they are representative of price from different periods (or perspective), none of them are truly representative of price action as a whole.

I have presented this question before: What does the 50-day moving average tell you? Well, the 50-day moving average.

So let's say you use 3, 50-, 100-, and, 200-day averages. You are leaving out EVERYTHING OVER, UNDER, AND IN BETWEEN THOSE AVERAGES. But if you use ALL OF THEM, you CAN'T see anything? Right? Wrong.

In order to use all of them. You have to understand how they relate to each other. This is the theory behind PIMA, Pham Infinite moving average, pictured below. Note that the screen shot for this demo does NOT use PIMA, but PIRL.

This is snapshot of PIMA:

PIMA allows you to see ALL THE TRENDS AS LIMITED BY BAR HISTORY. Why do you need to see ALL THE TRENDS? Because they are all representative of price and THEY ALL MATTER. Plus, you can see the gradual changes as one layer of trends influence another. That said, PIMA is not great for forecasting. For that I use Pham Infinite Regression Layering.

The picture at the top for this demo is gold in 2010 vs gold right now, it is what I call "a regression fractal". Why? Because EVERY SINGLE TREND LINE HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR.

to be continued... (by the way, WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN, and I will provide the evidence why soon)

註釋

First, here is gold on 5 day bars:

註釋

What does this show? It shows that if you account for EVERY SINGLE TREND, we are NOWHERE NEAR DOUBLE TOPPING. The regressions are layered in a ratio that allows you to see what a topping process looks like.

註釋

Here is a zoom in of that 2011 top, same bar size:

Here is a zoom in of same top, with much smaller bar. Note that the grays in the previous picture ARE NOW ORANGE. This lets you see all the smaller trends happening too.

註釋

Now here same bar size for today:

註釋

In order to have a top from a weekly/monthly perspective, you have put in several tops FIRST. And for the same "trend" perspective, price is needs to get under the entire orange wave to be considered A GIANT DOUBLE TOP.

註釋

That explains why I'm not bearish. But doesn't really explain why I am bullish. I will post more later.

to becontinued...

註釋

In the meantime, I want to point out something: WE ARE MORE BULLISH THAN WE WERE IN 2010. I will obviously show evidence.

註釋

First here is 1 day bars in 2010 vs 2020.

2010

註釋

2020

註釋

So the chart at the top for this demo is the same comparison but on 8 hour bars. What does it say? First on block-by-block, trend line for trend line basis, we are HANDS DOWN STRONGER than 2010. But that doesn't mean we can't have localized votalitily.

註釋

If the last statement is true, and it is from a regression stand point, what will happen next? Price will get over the redline bold line very likely in 9 8 hour bars or 3 days. Yes it can can happen in bars. Therefore it is very likely in 9 bars. But this is probability not a court of civil law. You are guilty until proven innocent. Picture of this move below:

註釋

So compare the idea chart at the top. Remember this: all trends have been considered. This is why it's so hard to see a crash from here, because it's in position to crash. It CAN GET INTO THAT POSITION by morphing sideways for a while. BUT NOT RIGHT NOW.

註釋

SEVERAL TYPOS:

1) 9 8-hour bars or 3 days
2) it can happen in 3 bars (or 1 day). Therefore it is very likely in 9 bars.
3) a crash from here, because it's NOT in position to crash.

Binary_Forecasting_Service