Hi Jim,

Thanks for opening this Forum to your students and giving us an opportunity to show our charts and share our ideas.

Here is a chart of todays ABCD's in the russell. I will post a context chart later. Today was one of those days where the market changes direction on Jim's unique Fib numbers, Had you been trading with standard fib numbers you may not have noticed these PTA's. Is it me or is .564 becomming more and more prevalent?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pinkf64

Jim, re the pivots. Did you consider hlc/3 Vs hlcoo/4. On non-gap days it doesn't matter. On gap days the hlcoo/4 will factor in the gap, thus, not just yesterday's data, but also todays open. Do you prefer hlc/3 as it is more common, thus self fulfilling?

---

Pink, I use hlc/3, RTH, because it is the most commonly watched, IMO. Many are switching to all-sessions data, but until that is the standard I'm staying with that one. Factoring in the gap and such in some manner would be better, as would ohlc/4 on any day, since why say the open isn't important data, but I am using this to see where 'they' are watching, and more importantly, to see how that fits with my layout, as we saw today.

itching all over to do the mentorship...and this forum is one of the best free things I've ever signed up for.

I think it is the best forum I have ever seen, but I'm biased...

The mentorships can be really great, in that one gets to pick my brain in an environment not encumbered like this media is. Instant answers via the charts, one after another. I've never failed to get a student to say 'uncle' and ask to take a break. I'm trying to learn to be laid back, but I'm usually a wired to the max type A++++ personality with no off switch, so I go and go and go, at full throttle. Moving up here and mentoring in the rain forest is designed to keep me from exploding...

Bounce off daily .685. ER loves this number that only Kane trader have!!

Oh, just wait, some day someone will claim they have had it since 1970, they got it from a guy from England who has had it since 1920, who got it from a guy in Japan who used to trade rice with it in the 1600's, just like they say with the .886. Funny how they all derived the .886 (but kept it quiet), and then once I published it they all starting saying they already had it. Yet I have developed over a dozen other new numbers, and these others haven't went on to develop one single new number since 'they' discovered the .886. But I bet 'they' actually have all those other numbers already, too, and just haven't told anybody. So soon they will claim they already had those, too. I never told anybody this before, but I actually had E=MC2 before Einstein. I just didn't tell anybody... :-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimkane

Oh, just wait, some day someone will claim they have had it since 1970, they got it from a guy from England who has had it since 1920, who got it from a guy in Japan who used to trade rice with it in the 1600's, just like they say with the .886. Funny how they all derived the .886 (but kept it quiet), and then once I published it they all starting saying they already had it. Yet I have developed over a dozen other new numbers, and these others haven't went on to develop one single new number since 'they' discovered the .886. But I bet 'they' actually have all those other numbers already, too, and just haven't told anybody. So soon they will claim they already had those, too. I never told anybody this before, but I actually had E=MC2 before Einstein. I just didn't tell anybody... :-)

---

Jim,

Have you considered a patent on those? Not sure if you could do that or even copyright them since nobody can own numbers as far as I know, but maybe in the context of the application. Who knows? Here's what google spit out when searching patents with 'Fibonacci' in the query:
http://www.google.com/patents?q=fibonacci&btnG=Search+Patents

M,

Actually you can, and Scott over at HT has a slew of patents pending on all sorts of things. You perhaps can't patent the number alone, but you could patent its use in various trading aspects. But a patent is only as good as the ability to enforce it, and I just didn't think it could be enforced.

It is curious, though, this insane patent debate, now with patenting human genes, and such. They are getting looser and looser, allowing more and more crazy things to be patented. A very interesting case is in crops. Some say this is on purpose, some say no, but it is very scary. Farmers in Canada recently lost a lawsuit over planting their own crops. Seems one of the big bioengineering farms tested all the small farmers crops and found traces of their patented genes in there, and since they didn't have 'permission', they were forced to stop planting.

The farmers claim all it takes is wind and their crops are infected with the spores of the engineered crops. They claim the big places drive around and spread the spores, and then tell them to stop planting, driving them out of business, and then buying up their foreclosed land at auction. Imagine when they tell you your kid has one of their patented genes, and that's a problem, you need to compensate them...

It's true that it is hard to enforce a patent in certain situations, but what it will do is protect your 'invention'. If, for example, at some point a big company like esignal develops a 'trading system' incorporating one of your numbers and you have a patent on this number than you can either sue the heck out of them, cash in or both (just remember the huge patent suit Blackberry just endured).
Some people also patent their 'findings' solely for the sake of recognition which is perfectly valid, as well.

I am just so amazed how well this methodology works on the ER.
This just had wave 2 setting up wave 3 written all over it today.

Hey M, there ought to be a law a against it :)) Thanks Jim!!

thankyou duane i knew it was back there somewhere...