yawn back at ya - why is that an attack?
Speaking of yawn, trading the European open - c ya.
Are you good at price action and technical analysis?
- Thread starter longandshort
- Start date
Speaking of yawn, trading the European open - c ya.
First off, standardize the data set. Equal amount of bars for all the charts (ex. 3 days leading to the most recent RTH). Contrast the colors so people can see and make sure individual bars are clear.
Your answer should really just be:
a. more bullish bars from now till close
b. more bearish bars from now till close
c. equal bullish/bearish bars from now till close
I think that's more accurate representation of PA than asking a binary question for the next bar in time...
It's never easy to debate a, uh, fib, lol, observe the success that langershortts is having. none.
You're up on this one LnS...
She's a seempel question for you. Have at her...
Clue: 1) Some, with details.
2) None. Nuff said.
Last edited:
Alright everybody, get some sleep. That is enough of this debate. Somebody, please start a thread on Elliot Wave Trading and lets beat that trading theory up next and argue on it next.
Listen to R.Kelly and Pooh Shiesty and smile before bed. Maybe do a dance before bed too.
FREE R.Kelly, and for damn sure FREE Pooh Shiesty. RIP Big Scarr. Damn Free R.Kelly, shit.
Listen to R.Kelly and Pooh Shiesty and smile before bed. Maybe do a dance before bed too.
FREE R.Kelly, and for damn sure FREE Pooh Shiesty. RIP Big Scarr. Damn Free R.Kelly, shit.
I don't know what is good since I don't take the survey. It's all about charts. All method seems to work, sometimes work and does not work all the time. I use both method at a very basic level i.e. support & resistance, channel, and moving averages. Lower volatility supports long trend. I am out when hit stop loss, meander(sideway), and break 50MA. It's a grinding process.
Hey, longandshort, I know I bowed out of this thread yesterday, but a couple of things came to mind that I thought I'd run by you. Just for shits and giggles.
First, what do you say to the various Schwager market wizards across his different books who either principally or wholly attributed their success to the studying, following and trading of price action in one form or another? Were they all lying? Are they all has-beens?
Second, it belatedly occurred to me that your question was not only ham-handed, which I already pointed out, but fairly preposterous as well. The nature of your question/challenge implies that someone who relies on price action in one form or another should be able to call direction and duration at the drop of a hat at the conclusion of any moment or price bar in time. That alone is full-on bullshit. It essentially suggests that such a trader can be in the market at any and every moment in time. Doesn't happen in the real world. (But it is a great strawman argument, because it presents an all-or-nothing proposition.)
I would think that the traders who use a form of price action look for certain patterns that provide a low-risk entry. (And while a low-risk entry would ideally be reliable more than 50% of the time, it need not be to be useful.) Such patterns are not always present. In fact, I would argue that a good trader has to wait a length of time (subject to his time horizon) for a suitable pattern to emerge. And by pattern, I don't necessarily mean off-the-shelf generic stuff like H&S, flags, and so on, or even indicators or diagonal/horizontal lines, some which I suppose can be useful to some people, but are still fairly subjective interpretations of PA. I also refer to patterns that have a mathematical or arithmetic basis and can be objectively identified. Patterns that do not necessarily occur with sufficient frequency in all time frames or across all markets.
And then you wrote this:
First, what do you say to the various Schwager market wizards across his different books who either principally or wholly attributed their success to the studying, following and trading of price action in one form or another? Were they all lying? Are they all has-beens?
Second, it belatedly occurred to me that your question was not only ham-handed, which I already pointed out, but fairly preposterous as well. The nature of your question/challenge implies that someone who relies on price action in one form or another should be able to call direction and duration at the drop of a hat at the conclusion of any moment or price bar in time. That alone is full-on bullshit. It essentially suggests that such a trader can be in the market at any and every moment in time. Doesn't happen in the real world. (But it is a great strawman argument, because it presents an all-or-nothing proposition.)
I would think that the traders who use a form of price action look for certain patterns that provide a low-risk entry. (And while a low-risk entry would ideally be reliable more than 50% of the time, it need not be to be useful.) Such patterns are not always present. In fact, I would argue that a good trader has to wait a length of time (subject to his time horizon) for a suitable pattern to emerge. And by pattern, I don't necessarily mean off-the-shelf generic stuff like H&S, flags, and so on, or even indicators or diagonal/horizontal lines, some which I suppose can be useful to some people, but are still fairly subjective interpretations of PA. I also refer to patterns that have a mathematical or arithmetic basis and can be objectively identified. Patterns that do not necessarily occur with sufficient frequency in all time frames or across all markets.
And then you wrote this:
From personal experience, I think the comment is absurd. Where something will be in 3 months?! Speaking only for myself, I consider it a success if the next few bars go my way on balance, and then play it by ear based on looser criteria than for that entry. Not everyone believes in price projections or objectives, which, at least to me, smacks of predetermination.
Last edited:
I would add to the Market Wizards books folks, Tom DeMark who consulted with the some biggest all-time greatest traders (Tudor-Jones, Soros, Steve Cohen (yea yea SEC fine $20+ billion later) Leon Cooperman, Mark Steinhardt ........ using his TA techniques. Available for lease on the vaunted Bloomberg terminal for a pretty penny.
Why are you spending time arguing over a hypothetical I presented as an example of the detail I’d need to make a fair test?
The current version focuses on the very short term to answer a very simple question — is price action useful to assess whether the price is going to move higher or lower at the next interval. I understand that this is not a comprehensive test lol. What I don’t get is why you and others are so butthurt and are whining about how unfair the test is, instead of giving me the parameters of what a fair test would look like.
if you tell me what you look at to make a trade, and what your average time horizon is, I’m happy to put together another test based upon that.
finally, in regards to the market wizards series — they are a fun read but don’t really tell the truth about how those traders actually make money. Tom DeMarks indicator is $500/mo lol, that’s not a “pretty penny” when Point72 has hundreds of analysts (all getting paid 200k-1mm — and guess what, they’re doing fundamental equity research).
The current version focuses on the very short term to answer a very simple question — is price action useful to assess whether the price is going to move higher or lower at the next interval. I understand that this is not a comprehensive test lol. What I don’t get is why you and others are so butthurt and are whining about how unfair the test is, instead of giving me the parameters of what a fair test would look like.
if you tell me what you look at to make a trade, and what your average time horizon is, I’m happy to put together another test based upon that.
finally, in regards to the market wizards series — they are a fun read but don’t really tell the truth about how those traders actually make money. Tom DeMarks indicator is $500/mo lol, that’s not a “pretty penny” when Point72 has hundreds of analysts (all getting paid 200k-1mm — and guess what, they’re doing fundamental equity research).
Last edited:
My point was to show you that the approach you proposed is flawed. I have no interest in jumping through your hoops; I just thought it might be useful to let you know that your hoop is misshapen. If you were really interested, you would take it from there. But you are too self-satisfied to really give a shit. You're just after gotchas.
Well, this has been a delightful interlude. I will let you get back to your regularly scheduled trolling.