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.
ehorn
-
Content Count
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by ehorn
-
I'll throw in my hat too...
-
ROFL......... Nice!
-
No, I did not get that one correct. But by 9:50 am ET on 8/11 - things were a bit more clear to me.
-
You just gotta love those A.M. rips to confirm your PFC...
-
+1 for this MADA...
-
My view of the day...
-
Sesame Street was brought to you today by the letter "W" Sorry couldn't resist...
-
So my daughter is watching Sesame Street this morning and I am reminded of a recent post. "One of these things is not like the other..." lol! So I am pondering... Is one of these things LIKE the other? "Me love cookies!" lol! FFJ Out.
-
My view of the day...
-
How far down the rabbit hole does one wish to go... A prudent entry is on the ES-5M tape FTT.
-
And me... In RT I labeled the up move as a traverse. So my error occurred earlier in the day. And when you "think" you have built something - then you are looking for something else (despite the markets clarity). For me... Yes Thanks, The template just goes right on over to the YM-2M and lets one see leading points of change... (where have I heard that before) lol! Perhaps we should keep the focus on ES-5M for now though...
-
Some morning trading notes...
-
The market is very nice - it has told us this morning which way was the only correct way to annotate that snippet and so we can know WMCN
-
In the annotation drill snippet (across the first 9 bars) we go: Stitch FBP OB FTP FBP OB What do we know about flaws? @ 14:10 we begin moving up: First bar DBV Second Bar DBV Is there something about tapes TO DV? IBV does show up at 14:20... How does it form? If I review the sequences through here - I can only conclude one correct way to annotate this snippet which applies to every other thing on the same fractal.
-
A Tape... Volume... Yep! (small rudders) I am a perennial "FFJ"... (Friggin' Fractal Jumper!) :doh: Thanks Spyder
-
My view of the day...
-
Hey LJ, As configured, NT trunks the LAT shadowing with one bar out. To me, it appeared to be a dominant lateral. I believe dominant laterals take us to PT2 of something (I have annotated it as PT2 of the final DOM tape). I see a few possible ways to annotate the past few days (read I am lacking certainty here) and so tomorrow I will WAIT for certainty. A wise man once provided some great insight. When one is lacking certainty as to the accuracy of his/her annotations of the sequences, then the only correct decision/action is to WAIT. WAIT until the market provides certainty for the trader.
-
My effort for the day...
-
My efforts for the 3 fractals from Friday (7/31).
-
yvw, DV = Decreasing Volume - The second bar in the formation IV = Increasing Volume - The second bar in the formation Think of a flaw (i.e. pennant type) - What type of volume typically forms the second bar of the pennant? A stitch is also a flaw. IMO, The volume of the second bar gives clues as to what type of stitch we are observing (think increasing volume decreasing volatility - or the inverse). With regards to laterals, I share a similar view as JBarnby describes in an earlier post where he describes the differentiation of laterals. Gaussians are tracked and built from lowest fractal to highest (tape ---> traverse ---> channel). Sometimes there are more visible fractals on a 5M chart (sub-fractals) but we strive to focus on the 3 listed above. I have attached my debriefed chart for today. On It, I use blue to indicate tapes, green (today) and orange to indicate traverse (5M level). Looks like tomorrow I will be using the orange... Best wishes
-
My efforts on STITCH / OB / LAT - Differentiation Drill for today.
-
An eloquent summary of a key concept.
-
A problem for whom? you?..., DbPhoenix?..., <insert name here> From my perspective, this is simply not a problem which requires a solution. A trader can examine his/her personal results and conclude something about performance and effectiveness. The market is always there and it is an excellent (only) resource for validating or invalidating solutions to problems. Your accusations and responses portray a discomfort and unwillingness to allow sharing to occur in a community intended for just such a purpose. Trading is not about prediction. All trading accurs in the NOW, some methods do provide for a level of anticipation. I would not suggest that any learning trader commit any capital until they have sufficient testing and understanding of the methods they undertake. I am not interested in your opinion. Nor am I concerned with your assessment of the approach to which I subscribe. If you despise my views or feel they are out of line with your set of beliefs then feel free to put me on ignore and save yourself the hassle. I would recommend that for anyone who shares your views. It appears the discussion has taken a fork in the road. My intent was to share my thoughts regarding the OP's inquiry. As senior members (read post count) - I would have anticipated a similar level of courtesy and respect towards fellow members who are making inquiries and/or contributions and sharing ideas about trading. Peace.
-
Many people are successful applying many techniques to trading. It is clear (and no surprise) that you and others do not agree with and/or have not experienced success or found value in the application of price/volume relationship. I am not compelled to try to convince you or anyone else of its efficacy. But I (as are you) are compelled to provide a response to the OP's inquiry (which is a great one) based on our own personal experiences and conclusions. Those experiences are clearly reflected in our differing responses. With that - It is my personal experience that the principles are effective in giving a trader the tools needed to understand how markets operate and this information can be used to trade effectively and I am personally satisfied with the results it produces. You would disagree with this assertion (again, no surprise). In civil discussions - It is ok (with me) that folks agree to disagree Best wishes
-
LOL! Anyone is free to explore the concepts at their own convenience and make a determination if the information presented is valuable or not. I have seen statistics approaching 4:1 which deny the facts represented in my post. In trading - it is good to be on the side of the minority. Have a nice day
