NQ - Supply & Demand

[dbphoenix]

haha so basically what your saying is based on the BEHAVIOR (lol) one treats it as a typical retracement entry if warranted. My third trade from yesterday was my example and I suppose based on what you just said I treated it correctly (based off of the behavior not the fact that the trade worked out in hindsight).

I'm not clear on what the symbols mean, but your first green arrow ought to be a short, though I can't tell if it's far enough away from the crest. This will either not be triggered or, if it is, won't be confirmed, in which case you look for the first op to go long. That would be your first red arrow. I don't know what the second green arrow signifies.

But you must be comfortable with the whole idea and process of SAR. Otherwise, you will really F yourself U.

 

[eminiman414]

My first trade I went long (green) exited (red). Saw this as a retracement I did not want to miss. Then second trade realized I should not have taken the first long as (according to what I saw) a break occured and then retracement. Long the second green triangle exit the second red triangle. The third green triangle was the type of situation I am talking about with re-entering after an exit. Essentially my first trade I felt similarly and entered similarly. Does this make more sense now??? No SARs

 

[dbphoenix]

My first trade I went long (green) exited (red). Saw this as a retracement I did not want to miss. Then second trade realized I should not have taken the first long as (according to what I saw) a break occured and then retracement. Long the second green triangle exit the second red triangle. The third green triangle was the type of situation I am talking about with re-entering after an exit. Essentially my first trade I felt similarly and entered similarly. Does this make more sense now??? No SARs

You made the wrong choices. When the DL is broken, you look for a short. You went long. When the SL is broken, you look for a long. You went short. Eventually you got in synch, but may just have been lucky. It doesn't look to me as if the first two trades should have been triggered at all, which would have sent a message of its own.

 

[eminiman414]

There must be some confusion in my explanation because I did not go short until right before 10:20. The first demand line drawn broke and I did look short but no short entry was triggered. Because of the initial move up and the supply line I have drawn broke I entered a long as to not miss the continued up move which I exited immediately (first red triangle). Then I took the retracement long since the same supply was broken. The first trade was not based on the SLA however the second long (second green triangle) was. It's ninjatrader the first symbol u see is the entry the second the exit.

 

[eminiman414]

The green triangle at 9:56 is the type of situation my original question was about. That was an entry long. You described that as TDTDB. So essentially what you described is what I did. I looked to go short however based on the behavior and the longer term extended DL I went long and was watching the swing high closely.

 

[dbphoenix]

This is the best I can do:

 

[eminiman414]

that's basically what I did. Your long is my second long. First long I saw that as what you describe as TDTDB same for my third long at 9:56

 

[dbphoenix]

that's basically what I did. Your long is my second long. First long I saw that as what you describe as TDTDB same for my third long at 9:56

There is no long at 0956. After the brk of your DL, there is no ret for a short. Before that happens, your SL, not drawn, is broken and you look for the first ret to go long. This doesn't occur until 1000, but that's the trade-off for having lines that are too tight.

Edit: instead of looking for reasons to get out, look for reasons to stay in. Once you jump off the train, it's difficult to get back on. Too often one has to wait until it pulls in to the next station.

 

[eminiman414]

There is no long at 0956. After the brk of your DL, there is no ret for a short. Before that happens, your SL, not drawn, is broken and you look for the first ret to go long. This doesn't occur until 1000, but that's the trade-off for having lines that are too tight.

I see I see. That makes sense. I didn't consider that small downward move to qualify for a supply line to be drawn since there was no retracement which is why I took that long at 9:56 plus the longer DL holding, and the behavior was rather sluggish in comparison to the up move. I do see the long at 10:00 and did see that in real time regardless of whether the line was drawn or not. I was already in so I did not have to take that long at 10:00. The reason I did see that as a long at 10:00 was not because of the sl break (which I did not know could be drawn) but more that the swing high broke.

 

[dbphoenix]

I see I see. That makes sense. I didn't consider that small downward move to qualify for a supply line to be drawn since there was no retracement which is why I took that long at 9:56 plus the longer DL holding, and the behavior was rather sluggish in comparison to the up move. I do see the long at 10:00 and did see that in real time regardless of whether the line was drawn or not. I was already in so I did not have to take that long at 10:00. The reason I did see that as a long at 10:00 was not because of the sl break (which I did not know could be drawn) but more that the swing high broke.

All of which worked out fine. But you got lucky. Rather than modify the rules, I suggest you eliminate the lines entirely and go with the flow. You don't seem particularly fearful, so I don't see the need for the crutches. If such a need arises, you can always go back to them.