@Shone1910 Why posting equations that are (from a mathematical point of view) complete non-sense, when it is more than obvious that they don’t lead anywhere but to people being confused and eventually falling into this trap?
@Shone1910 You are just constantly repeating the same unsubstantial phrases. Bring up proper data that confirms your „strategie“. It’s sad to see that people are being manipulated by unverified so called „trading strategies“ that are, in fact, just mystified non-sense.
@Shone1910 One test: over 20+ cycles, does the real extreme land in Q_next more than 25% (chance)? Post the data and an out-of-sample p-value. It won’t beat the base rate.
Costume is Tolkien. Engine is mod 4. Signal is nil — and the paywall is the point.
@Shone1910 Your formula carries zero market information.
Every Qᵢ is set by the clock, so Q_next is a pure function of time — no price, no volume, no direction. A number decided by the calendar can’t predict a chart.
@Shone1910 It’s also unfalsifiable by design: you never fix n or when you compute it, and the Qᵢ roll over every few minutes. Free parameters let you fit any outcome after the fact. Explains everything → predicts nothing.
@Shone1910 And the “prophecy” is just the math restated in robes: “odds birth their opposite” = 111→3, 333→1; “evens hold their peace” = 222→2, 444→4. Trivial mod-4 identities, not market laws. You’re citing the equation as proof of itself.
@Shone1910 That’s not rigor, it’s theater: make it mystical, fascinate people, keep them hooked until they’re begging you to reveal “the secret” — for a fee, of course.
@Shone1910 The dressed-up notation is the tell. ((Σ−1) mod 4)+1 is a base-4 digital root — grade-school arithmetic — written to look arcane so it feels profound and impenetrable.