The market did, last April, and confirmed Wednesday. Of course, you won't see it if you don't read it.
Or you could just draw a straight line . . .
Have you used dbphoenix's teachings to become a successful trader?
- Thread starter FeetFirst
- Start date
The market did, last April, and confirmed Wednesday. Of course, you won't see it if you don't read it.
Or you could just draw a straight line . . .
The market predicted it! lol 
The market predicted it! lol
That's what Auction Market Theory is all about.
Of course, not everyone would like to know what direction price is going to go and how far it will go. But some do.
DbPhoenix said this on 2/12/2015 when you still had a chance to grab 60 points or so. Of course you would have to know which trend channel to draw and refer to if you wanted the weekly target. But the method is the there for the taking.
Has one person here who is critical of DbPhoenix ever tried to understand what it is he teaches? It really is amazing stuff. If you were to go through just his NQ price targets thread, and then read the AMT .pdf, studying it to the point of understanding, you might be able similarly to amaze your friends, if not yourself.
The attentive reader may have noticed by now that one’s ability to make use of this
information depends largely – or entirely – on his ability to draw a trend channel. Many cannot do this. However, if one can at least tell whether price is going up or down and enclose this movement in something resembling a PVC conduit, then he is at least on the right track. If he continues to have difficulty and he has or has access to a child under the age of 10, let him do it. He should have no difficulty in doing so, particularly if he has some experience with Chutes And Ladders. If the trader then draws a line down the middle of this channel, a line that is equidistant from the two sides, he will have his mean and can then begin making prognostications about price movements and Amaze His Friends (depending on how easily his friends are amazed).
The OP has overstated the question. What should be asked is Who here has studied DbPhoenix's teachings?
Answer: Very, very few. In fact, hardly any. Maybe two or three.
Everyone else, both the detractors and the "students" seem to have made up there mind before a reading (and in many case, instead of reading) the materials. Very very few, if he was honest with themselves, would be able to say of himself that he had been "an attentive reader."
I am so glad I'm not as smart as most here think themselves to be, and that I have the good sense to know it. You see, when you are uneducated and come to something you new to you, you know you are uneducated. So, wanting to learn, you pay attention.
We all know how successful Goldman Sachs and Renaissance (Jim Simons) in the trading business, and I don't think they hire a couple hundred of Ph.D. in math, physics and computer technology just to have them to draw some straight lines. Sure, you can make money by drawing some lines (PLUS if you have enough experience reading the market), but there are better ways by means of computing to study the market dynamics and complexity in order to establish more reliable and accurate reading of the price movements even at individual level.
Well, we got within six points of the projected target today after a considerable advance. And it didn't require a Ph.D. in math, physics, or computer technology. All it required was the ability to draw a pipe. Odd that no one did.
I'm going to presume you have an engineering background and possibly presently employed in such a capacity. Just because you believe strongly in the quantitative side of things does not necessarily mean the qualitative side is invalidated and/or bogus.
People aren't drawing lines and purely acting mindlessly off of them - they're simply contextual guides of interest. I have drawn lines on a 5m chart days previously on trends that have already been broken only to later see prices return to said line on the dot multiple times in multiple disparate instruments. This is not a coincidence.
What's next, market profile is a bunch of baloney as well?
A few weeks prior when there was a down channel that he had drawn, I specifically said ''Are you saying that we're gonna go towards the lower channel now? Is that your bet??''
He replied ''No bet''
He never commits himself to a position. If what his chart implies might happen,does happen, he'll gloat, if it fails, he'll claim to have never been in the trade.
Drawing a channel isn't a 'call' or a prediction, and I get annoyed when people try to take credit for things that they haven't done.
There's a few morons on trade2win who do this all of the time.
If one wants to claim credit for predictions, they have to actually make a prediction and call a live trade.
Anyone could draw a chart now and add 5 random horizontal lines and then claim a great prediction when price inevitably hits one of them, lol
There's a difference between pointing out that the upper limit of the channel is 4450 and stating that we're going to reach it. Given that Auction Market Theory is a theory, one cannot state unequivocally that price is going to reach this or that level in advance. But understanding the probabilities of which the direction price is most likely to go and how far it's most likely to go is the basis of discretionary trading.
Since the trolls still don't understand that this is about demand and supply and not about "random horizontal lines", much less understand how to draw a trend channel, they will predictably come up with more "the bull market is over" threads when price reverses up here and travels down toward the lower limit of the trend channel. Will it get there? Who knows? The future is unknowable. It did not, after all, reach it in November and segued into a range instead, which carried its own message. But at least the trader who understands demand and supply and price movement knew not to be long on the way down, just as he knew not to be short on the way up.
It really doesn't matter to me whether the trolls buy into this or not. But I do want to correct misinformation.