Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • City
  • Country
  • Gender
  • Occupation
    marketeer in the past, trying to be fulltime trader now
  • Interests
    RC cars

Trading Information

  • Vendor
  • Favorite Markets
  • Trading Years
  1. VSA, Wyckoff, ... it doesn't matter much. From what I've seen here there's always an excuse at the end of the day why something else happened. Justification seems to happen no matter what approach. Thanks for your efforts Bearbull. I do appreciate them.
  2. If those are ideal long setups, than just watch how it goes down to 1952 again.
  3. Lol, even more remarkable that in this particular hindsight analysis of yours, it's the first time a SAR is mentioned. Whatever fits the case, I guess... First it was a test, than a rejection, now it's a reversal signal. :\ Don't worry, this was my final post on the matter. I just think you should put a disclaimer underneath your posts. It's curious how many times you mention where one should exit his trade, with a lot of "assuming" and where he "should have" entered, often leaving out the entry until mentioning it at the EOD (like yesterday). Ciao.
  4. That's not only a very egotistical assumption, it's also a rather presumptuous. Anyone can learn how to trade, if they are shown the right way by others. Some might need more help than others. I frankly had enough of this elitist talk. It's become quite clear to me that those who whistle your tune are free to say and do what they want, but those who ask concrete questions are often left out in the dark to figure it out for themselves. You think your blog was so insightful, but you forget that almost every question I asked was at best left unanswered, or ignored. Goodbye, and thanks to all those who did offer to help me by PM. One final note, in case anyone reads this later one: I asked one HARD question, and no ONE could answer it. Good luck trading hindsight principles.
  5. I'm not sure what you are implying by "not suited for the task". Are you saying some people are meant to become traders and others aren't?
  6. Sorry Bearbull, but no where in your reply could I find something related to the two identical charts I posted. Talking about what I should or should not do, doesn't change the fact on what I see in front of me.
  7. Thanks for helping me out Bearbull. I'm glad you posted this, because this is EXACTLY what I saw the day before. No one has given me an answer yet as to why yesterday it was short signal but the day before it was not. It's very easy to say in hindsight you should've been long or short, but just look at all the similarities between the two situations: (1) a demandline can be drawn, price starts to go up on increasing volume (2) climactic action (high volume) when price approaches potential resistance (first 1990, later 2005) (3) rapid mark-up in price on increased volume (4) peak volume but in both cases price rejects higher levels! look at the close of the bar on high volume in my chart. It's clearly on the lows, while in the rejection of 2005 it closes off the highs, but in the middle. One could even argue that my chart gives a better short signal! (5) followed by a number of small upbars on low volume You're saying the path of least resistance is down after the break of the demandline. Allright, why is this the case in the right chart, but not in the left (see attached)? The two situations are identical. Whatever setup I choose to test, I keep seeing the same patterns but they work one time and fail the next. I'm never going to find something that works more than 50% of the time. Perhaps you more experienced traders are acting on something that's not in the chart, some 'intuitive feeling' or something...
  8. I can understand one is long yesterday from earlier on in the day. What I don't understand is why you choose to ignore the possibility that one is long today, from support, at 1990 (for the reasons I stated), but you choose to focus solely on the short from resistance. While, if I'm reading the chart from left to right, at the time is at resistance, he is still in a long trade.
  9. You're being somewhat selective. About yesterday, you're assuming one is long when price hits 1990, so he stays in or takes some off his position off instead of shorting. While today you are assuming that shorting 2005 is 'the key trade', because the trader is still flat. If you look at it from another pov, you could easily say short 1990 yesterday (high volume) and go long on support 1990 today, expecting a continuation of the uptrend. Your reply is going to be that there's no reason to short yesterday as the demandline wasn't broken which is correct, but neither was it today if you draw one from 1990 up to 2005. I'm sorry, but it seems like the decision to take the trade or not, depends on something else which you forgot to tell us perhaps. Also, there was no way knowing today was going to be a trend day. You said it yourself, after a trend day (like yesterday) we usually have a consolidation day. So was there a reason not to go long off support today? And if a trader was long, should he not have patience and perhaps take off some of his position at the next resistance (2005), but leave some open. You've given plenty of examples yourself. So, following the approach you illustrated, one would exit part at 2005, wait for the demandline to break to exit some more and exit the rest at break-even. Not a whole lot of profit and he misses out on the big move.
  10. The same could be said of yesterday. There was a 'test' at 1990, high volume and the initial reaction pushed price lower, just like today. The difference is that price continued higher while today it reversed. So one should have reversed longs too yesterday than?
  11. Hindsight is 20/20... if price had gone up all day, you prob'ly would've said 'the key here is buying support at 1990'. After all, price opened around support, the trend from yesterday was up. There's a very similar example in your blog. So why not do it today? After all, price traveled all the way to resistance next. You can even draw a demandline next to it.
  12. So by offering an opposing view, you're saying I'm not welcome here anymore? All I did was try my best at offering another way of looking at things, backup up by ample evidence. Perhaps everyone should be silent and nod when you are speaking then. :hmpf:
  13. Perhaps I should have said I couldn't find any references to that "in this thread", or "in your posts". Cantana posted this in #49: AVERSION TO DENIAL Sustained directional trending action to the upside begins between the Aversion phase and the Denial phase. As the market slowly creeps up (April), the shorts start to sweat while those who don’t own a piece of the action vow to themselves that they will get in on the next dip that they believe is sure to come. The market continues higher and does not let them in. More and more bids materialize as buyers show up again while shorts begin to cover. Since there are not many sellers overhead, the move up can be big and fast, and on low volume (volume is low). If it keeps going, eventually those left behind in the dust have to get in again, and the loop continues. This isn't about me, it's about what's been discussed in this thread: Mamis, the bias towards the downside and the use of the concept of selling climaxes, re-tests, etc etc. I don't see why you perpetually confront me with my own trading, while I am just trying to offer a different perspective here. Especially since your reply to my earlier question was nothing more than a chart with a red down trendline, I can only conclude you still believed it wasn't going to break that.
  14. All I noticed where posts that emphasized that the upmove may not be real. That means the member who posts these comments is looking for these things. Otherwise, why did nobody else (except for my post) say anything about (a) the double bottom, (b) the lower volume on the re-test in March © the higher low in March on the Transports, (d) the break of the downtrend line, (e) the almost new highs in the Transports, (f) the continuing higher highs and higher lows as price traveled higher towards 13000? Sorry, but I couldn't find any references to those elements. All I noticed were posts about the downside potential. And Manby posted the SC couple of hours after the markets closed. By that time I was already long, but it was nice to see some confirmation though.
  15. With the DOW up another 100 points, I think the data backs up what I was saying. Believe it or not, I went long two days ago at the close of the markets. It's only on an ETF, but I don't care much. At least I know I'm trading on the right side of the market again and all this bias towards the downside from most people on this forum was clearly unjustified. Manby was spot on, he called it a selling climax Wednesday after the Fed.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.