Well, it was a hard work for me to be able to remove the veil, it is a rewiring process, removing the MAs and the H&S and the rigid rules is not always easy, at least it wasnt for me. I am still not there, but trying. Is like rehab.
NQ Price Action Journal
- Thread starter niko
- Start date
Well, it was a hard work for me to be able to remove the veil, it is a rewiring process, removing the MAs and the H&S and the rigid rules is not always easy, at least it wasnt for me. I am still not there, but trying. Is like rehab.
Good stuff Niko. I have come to learn also that the beginning of these moves tend to happen (from what I've been observing) based around AMT at least moves that are really worth my while.
Emini, thanks.
That is something I have been thinking about for a long while, so I re-studied the AMT file from DB and the TIF threads in TL.
The hypotheses I am going to test is that even though one is after a trend (multiple exits to achieve this goal), if one identifies oneself inside a congestion (TR, TC, Hinge (large enough)) the fact that an entry is triggered at an extreme should be a reason to SAR. Now, if one is wrong, one can always scratch and take the opposite side (RET after BO).
But as I said, that is just a Hypotheses, so I need to work on that.
Depends on how mechanical you want to be. At this point, tho, it's all hindsight, so perhaps you ought to do your own trade review and determine exactly why you scratched which trade.
Niko: For me, in and out would soon become a disaster for me because i would easily lose the big picture, my plan is to enter when i am 60% certain about direction therefore i am not a suitable person to comment your trading. Also i found out i cannot do well on multiple things so i chose to focus one thing at one time, then i am not a suitable person to comment here either. My current goal is to follow the plan consistently so that i know either my plan needs to be modified or my execution needs to be improved or both. I plan not to modify my plan (i did it all the time) until enough evidence telling me i have to. I found out most of time the problem is not in the plan but in my execution in following the plan. Prob i could write something about consistency since i have been thinking about it anyway.
Since the opening you were following your plan flawlessly, then excellent trading today and on average you are making very good points (loss is much smaller than your winning). The next question: could you do this consistently ? If you could do this consistently, then you do not need to worry about to improve anything at this point but try to increase the position size and then you could soon be consistently profitable. After consistently profitable, you could try to be consistently more profitable. For your reference only and it is possible what i wrote could be totally wrong.
Since the opening you were following your plan flawlessly, then excellent trading today and on average you are making very good points (loss is much smaller than your winning). The next question: could you do this consistently ? If you could do this consistently, then you do not need to worry about to improve anything at this point but try to increase the position size and then you could soon be consistently profitable. After consistently profitable, you could try to be consistently more profitable. For your reference only and it is possible what i wrote could be totally wrong.
Sure, at the time I had to leave so I did not have time to actually review, now that I have more time I will do it.
Trades:
1 . The SL was broken and the RET started to configure, placed the entry that was executed just before the open, but it was scratched. Here the trade did not go anywere after the entry, and the scratch proved to work just fine as the break of LSL would have increased stress levels way above acceptable levels.
2. I reentered the trade, but given that I do not have any clear re-entry rule this was more a blind bet that anything else. I will avoid re-entries for the rest of the week.
3. The longer term SL was broken and therefore an entry was called for, here as momentum picked up I decided that a new tighter line was called for. This line was something we discussed in the chat today, as it was "too" tight.
4. Anyway after the line was broken the trade was scratched and after a RET formed a short was called for. Now this short is dependent on the previous long being closed first. So that will eventually depend on how one traces the line. This is something upon which I would appreciate comments from all chat members, as we have to agree on where to trace or not trace a line before moving forward.
5. The SL was broken, then a RET was needed to start a new long, it finally came and the long was taken just before price skyrocketed. Here the closing was the tricky part, the DL was broken, but i did not close right away, I waited for a SAR to trigger but it didnt before the HH, then I cancelled the SAR and fanned the line. When that line was broken the next RET was shorted.
6. It was the RET after the break of the DL, but price did not go anywhere so scratch was the way to go.
7. SL was broken and a new RET triggered a long, this long managed to test the LSH, but I closed it too early, at the time i think I was not thinking clear, I think I had screwed up closing the long at 4 way too late, and lost focus. The important thing here is that once these 2 trades were scratched one after the other the market was telling you by its own action that it did not want to go either up nor down, so one had to wait until they made up their mind.
8. The BO came and the RET after it triggering a new long, this was scratched after the DL was broken.
9. The DL was broken and the RET formed therefore a Short was the way to go, but just after it was triggered price just stopped moving. I think I waited too much to scratch this one.
Whether or not the long is closed has nothing to do with how one traces the line. If you're going to trade this mechanically, the long is closed when your DL is broken, 0939. The ret for the short is at 0941. The entry is at 0942.
The short is then stopped out immediately. At this point, one can wait for the SL to be broken and a new long entry to present itself at 5, or, if one is calm enough, he can note the rejection which caused the short to be stopped out in the first place, and go long on the next bar (since he's out) or even the next bar after that, figuring that he can scratch for a trivial loss if it doesn't go. Traders are clearly rejecting 76/75, so this can be a situation (which comes up fairly often) where one can forget about the lines and go with the PA unless one needs to be mechanical for some reason.
What prevents the trader from doing this? A fear of being wrong? A fear of failing? A fear of losing a point? That this is not a well-reasoned trade with a probability >50% of being correct? What exactly is the cost of taking it and having it not work out?
Edit: I should also point out that the lines are intended to be aids, not indicators. If one starts focusing on the lines instead of on price, one may as well plot a bunch of moving averages. The lines are nothing more than a gauge of supply/demand imbalance. They do not provide support. They do not provide resistance. The behavior of price is always of primary importance. If the lines determine what you're doing, get rid of them.