And another try, sorry for the numerous charts, but went back to my morning chart to include yesterday's channels - just wasn't happy with the 11:30 to 12:00 area on today's only data.
Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
I'm not sure why you're so hostile ... I'm not ... to anybody ... I don't challenge anybody here ... I just try to politely discuss things I'm interested in ...
My identity is no secret ... but it is irrelevant to the topic in discussion ...
Obviously I believe there is great value in the method you present here, as it is in Jack Hershey's method ... otherwise I wouldn't spend time here, and take aggravation from some of the posters (occasionally you included ...)
It is true that I believe that not seeing any consistent real-time calls (excepting Jack's market forecast at the beginning of this year ...), I have some doubts that you and Jack and others really achieve the results you claim ... But this is also irrelevant, as even a much smaller degree of consistent profitability would be valuable...
It is too bad that your great contributions are shadowed by your occasionally exaggerated superiority attitude and lack of politeness ... Your contribution here is really great ... Too bad your attitude changed over time, as your presented method changed too ... I guess you're dealing with some frustration in trading this method too ...
I didn't intent to address you directly, but as you keep attacking me, I feel I have to reply even if this means that I'll have to leave your thread.
Please don't ask to delete this post. Thanks (I guess) ...
This isn't going to work either. Your passive aggressive approach to posting doesn't pass the laugh test.
Except that your statement here isn't accurate. You attacked several posters to this thread several times in the past. Simply, because your posts have since been deleted, doesn't mean you didn't create them. Again, drop the act. You aren't fooling anybody.
Perhaps, I have simply grown weary of people (such as yourself) who profess one thing, while at the same time, their actions indicate another. You attack people, yet claim you do not. You create threads "for others" when the reality is, you created it for yourself. You can't trade the methods discussed, and as a result, doubt others have the ability to do so.
As I have toid you now numerous times your problem is one of your own creation. You continue to allow your ego to prevent you from returning to, and focusing on, that which you have failed to fully grasp.
Quote from charts:
I guess you're dealing with some frustration in trading this method too ...
If, in order to cope with your own shortcomings, you need to believe your delusional assertions, understand, I do not feel compelled to convince you otherwise. However, many have posted their ability to trade, and capture significant profits. If after all the numerous individuals have posted their profitable blotters, you still want to suggest this thing is all about me, again, I have no plans to convince you otherwise.
I don't really care what you do, but seriously, stop with the snide remarks, personal attacks and all the other nonesense you claim to never do. Again, simply because Magna has removed your comments doesn't mean you didn't once create them.
Another example of how you just don't get it.
Seriously, good luck with whatever it is you choose to do with your life.
- Spydertrader
Spydertrader, would you be so kind to point me in the right direction so I can find a flaw in my annotations or my attempt on analysis.
Attached is the only way that I can make sense of today EOD based on both what I can 'see' and what I can't 'see'.
I am attempting unsuccessfully to determine why none of the two bars 13:20 and 13:45 represent change signals and therefore why dotted lines in the attached do not represent a traverse.
It seems to me that the 13:20 bar does not represent change because the market has not arrived at pt 2 yet. However based on the slope of the dotted lines 1320 can not be pt2 because the low of the bar does not extend lower than the dashed line drawn through the low of 12:35 in parallel to the dotted lines. So, 13:20 and how it's low sits in relationship to the dashed line - just doesn't make sense for it to be pt2.
13:45 seems to be Pace Acceleration and not Peak Volume. And it does not represent change because the sequences are not completed yet. 13:45 also makes sense as pt2 in orange down traverse.
I got a feeling that I am attempting to apply an incorrect logic here because I am running into the paradox where only one of the two bars (13:20 or 13:45) can be dominant.
13:20 is increasing volume and NOT a spike on two separate data feeds - so I can't think of any reason why it should not be dominant. But if it is, then 13:45 should be signal for change, and it's clearly not.
13:45 seems pretty straight dominant to me.
I have arrived at the point where the majority of days (even if I get confused during RTH) I am able to arrive at correct annotations and analysis based on EOD debrief.
Today belongs to a minority where I can't figure out what really happened and what is the correct way to annotate it.
I would greatly appreciate anything you can do to point me in the right direction.
Attached is the only way that I can make sense of today EOD based on both what I can 'see' and what I can't 'see'.
I am attempting unsuccessfully to determine why none of the two bars 13:20 and 13:45 represent change signals and therefore why dotted lines in the attached do not represent a traverse.
It seems to me that the 13:20 bar does not represent change because the market has not arrived at pt 2 yet. However based on the slope of the dotted lines 1320 can not be pt2 because the low of the bar does not extend lower than the dashed line drawn through the low of 12:35 in parallel to the dotted lines. So, 13:20 and how it's low sits in relationship to the dashed line - just doesn't make sense for it to be pt2.
13:45 seems to be Pace Acceleration and not Peak Volume. And it does not represent change because the sequences are not completed yet. 13:45 also makes sense as pt2 in orange down traverse.
I got a feeling that I am attempting to apply an incorrect logic here because I am running into the paradox where only one of the two bars (13:20 or 13:45) can be dominant.
13:20 is increasing volume and NOT a spike on two separate data feeds - so I can't think of any reason why it should not be dominant. But if it is, then 13:45 should be signal for change, and it's clearly not.
13:45 seems pretty straight dominant to me.
I have arrived at the point where the majority of days (even if I get confused during RTH) I am able to arrive at correct annotations and analysis based on EOD debrief.
Today belongs to a minority where I can't figure out what really happened and what is the correct way to annotate it.
I would greatly appreciate anything you can do to point me in the right direction.
9:50 through 13:50 represents one, very long, dominant Traverse down. Some may have chosen to 'fan' the Traverse on the way down.
13:20 does represent a Point Two. Perhaps, another method of annotation exists - one which allows for a single down channel.
Delete the Orange Traverse. Seeing it on your charts has clouded your view of the market. 13:45 completes the sequences required of a down traverse.
No. You aren't applying incorrect logic here. You've simply missed a few key signals from the market. Nothing more. First, Both 13:20 and 13:45 represent dominant bars. Now, If both 13:20 and 13:45 represent dominant bars, what is the only way 13:25 can't represent change?
Begin with knowing that 9:50 through 13:50 represents a dominant down traverse. Start by looking for areas where you may have annotated in a dominant fashion, but the market has indicated the area represents non-dominance.
HTH.
- Spydertrader
Neither (thick or thin lines) represent 100% accurate annotation of your Gaussians - irrespective of fractal. Each has partial accuracy.
HTH.
- Spydertrader