Two can play at that game! Ockham's Razor demands parsimony. I would take the common sense approach and say that "good news causes the price to jump; bad news causes the price to fall" is sufficient. The fact that this would be "priced in" to a more complicated model is not enough to spare this model from Ockham's Razor - it must be cut loose if the simple fact itself is sufficient. There's some sophistry for you!
As I said before I do respect the effort you put into explaining your work and your work itself, but please don't discount something you perceive as "unscientific" - especially if you claim that it may all be "priced in" already. Incidentally that is what lies at the root of your debate with me. I never criticized your prediction; I just said "whoops look how the news broke the fractal pattern". It was a simple point about news. You could have agreed and added that it was priced in to your model. Agreement across the boundary between science and common sense - nothing wrong with that!
PS. Congratulations on predicting this upwards breakout!
"good news causes the price to jump; bad news causes the price to fall" isn't even a workable hypothesis, because of the issues with news perception. you may feel bullish about a certain move, like the Overstock news (anticipating adoption), but its actual effect on the market might be the opposite (Overstock may sell their coins immediately after receiving them, thereby increasing the selling pressure in proportion to its effect on adoption rate). what may seem like "good" news to you is very subjective, to say the least! for instance, i would conjecture that the effect that the conversation around GHash and cex.io is bullish, not a cause for panic, because it is a demonstration of how a decentralised network can spontaneously self-organise in an effort of self-protection. beautiful!
anyway, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the price movement. the upwards move in question was not a breakout, it was part of the triangle pattern. the news didn't break anything.. it didn't even register as a blip in the price, if the price was already expected to move up due to simple consolidating forces. evidence for the news affecting price would have been an actual upwards breakout. what you're calling a 'mini-rally' wasn't even a rally, we've been trapped within tightening bounds for about 2 days now..
i can't quite tell if we're talking past each other at this point. i don't mean to draw anyone into technicalities, i was just challenging the validity of your hypothesis, that news affects price in predictable ways.PS
Quote from: T.Stuart
Although I must say that I wonder whether you would be as quick to dismiss your own model if your predicted upwards break had been disturbed by a negative news clip from China for example. Please be careful not to slip into sophistry.
i'll be careful not to slip into sophistry if you take care not to assume your own hypothesis
that's some pretty circular reasoning right there.--arepo