Simplicity in TA

Quote from clightmarathon:

You don't say you are yoohoo??????


Anyway, your old thread with cferret was my first "enlightment".
Thanks for the input you made. I read each of your posts in that thread , studying the trades on my own charting, etc.
Thanks.
Just wanted to let you know. Keep on enlightening.
:D
More...

Oops, looks like our little conspiracy is now discovered. :D

Funny, I was sure everybody knows it anyway, that's why posted cross nickname stuff so easily. :)

Thanks for the kind words about our old thread, it was my own path to consistency back then.
 
Looks like the cat's out of the bag now. With that, I'm glad I'll get no more pm's asking, "is Xspurt Yoohoo?"

Some here have been lucky enough to know Alan, and I (along with MANY others), can point out that he's the real deal, and someone I'd consider to be a Friend after all he's done to help me over the years.

It's just a matter of time until Jack Schwagger finds him, and does a book on Fx imo.

:)


Last, he's a busy guy. I don't ask him many questions anymore out of respect for him being busy. I usually find his former posts/threads, read them, and 9 times out of 10 I'll find what I'm looking for. (HINT!)

The one thing I don't recommend is people sending him numerous pm's, etc., I'd like to see him stick around a while.
 
Quote from Xspurt:

...You can easily prove this if you set up a 1m time chart and add in the range and volume nearest equivalents. and watch what happens. This is my preferred way to scalp. ...
More...

I have read many of your old posts saying that "everything works" and I agree and understand what you meant.
In the above quote, are you saying that you actually watch all 3 charts - 1 minute, range, and volume and look for confluence among the 3 when trading? Or were you just saying to look at this as a way of being able to actually see the points you were explaining?

And yes, the clowns have yet to provide anything of substance. What a surprise lol.
 
I discovered that X was Yoohoo a while ago, but didn't want to blow his cover. I've read through the old posts more than once but have to say EMTL's are a bit beyond me at this point so don't worry about me PMing about how to use them LOL.

But it was only recently that I saw to my surprise who Intraday FX Player was. :D

As for the trolls I don't think there are that many, probably the same few people under multiple usernames. Not much you can do about that unless you go to a more tightly moderated forum... it's very rare for an ongoing thread to avoid that sort of stuff. If Marty Schwartz or Michael Marcus were posting on ET they'd probably get the same treatment.
 
Quote from RedTankEra:

It's an upslanted head and shoulders, a cousin of an uptrend channel, with one head fake, it's head, so I wouldn't place all my bets into assuming that the neck will be flipped and broken by the bears, we need to see what happens down there and trade it accordingly before making any assumptions.

No bias is the key.
More...

Nice charts, I've got to get better at noticing these things.

Hope you'll continue to contribute here.
 
Don't worry guys, I'm not royalty. If ya need to pm me on something go right ahead, but I might refer you back to the thread for the benefit of others.

A few years back when I was going through the stage of mentoring some traders from ET that have become life long friends and trading buddies it was quite intense and I didn't want pm's, but now it's no big deal. Just appreciate the fact that if it's a technical question it might take a week to answer and more if my w/e is loaded.
 
Quote from jack411:

I have read many of your old posts saying that "everything works" and I agree and understand what you meant.
In the above quote, are you saying that you actually watch all 3 charts - 1 minute, range, and volume and look for confluence among the 3 when trading? Or were you just saying to look at this as a way of being able to actually see the points you were explaining?

And yes, the clowns have yet to provide anything of substance. What a surprise lol.
More...

Yes Jack, all three. But it's more than confluence - they take turns in leading.

Re. lines, if you mean space lines - that's a different technique.

If anyone thinks like this gentleman Mysteron who says, To paraphrase what a wise man once said 'if you draw enough lines on a chart then eventually price will coincide with some of them.' ...

Then you don't know what a trend line is sir, let alone how it works and how to prove it. History and performance is everything: how many times did it make contact? How did it react each time in terms of speed, amplitude, set up, volume, respect, timing and direction tell you all you need to know in this time frame about what to expect on the next contact. It's all about quality, not random contact points.

It makes me laugh when someone tries to be too clever and only demonstrates how little they know for the years they have been here. Yes Jack, everything works, but it demands tremendous effort to uncover the gems in what others discard as worthless: and that is what an edge is.
 
Quote from Xspurt:

Yes Jack, all three. But it's more than confluence - they take turns in leading.

Re. lines, if you mean space lines - that's a different technique.

If anyone thinks like this gentleman Mysteron who says, To paraphrase what a wise man once said 'if you draw enough lines on a chart then eventually price will coincide with some of them.' ...

Then you don't know what a trend line is sir, let alone how it works and how to prove it. History and performance is everything: how many times did it make contact? How did it react each time in terms of speed, amplitude, set up, volume, respect, timing and direction tell you all you need to know in this time frame about what to expect on the next contact. It's all about quality, not random contact points.

It makes me laugh when someone tries to be too clever and only demonstrates how little they know for the years they have been here. Yes Jack, everything works, but it demands tremendous effort to uncover the gems in what others discard as worthless: and that is what an edge is.
More...

That is my problem with your approach here X, you speak about everything here except the gems themselves, then someone like RedTankEra comes along and strictly posts gems with a non bullshit approach, quite the contrast.

If you wanna help then help, but you like to speak in riddles, whenever someones tries to obtain a gem from you, it's always a, beyond the scope of this thread, or beyond what I had intended, etc, and instead we get well, the riddles and no gems. Why must it be cryptic, just post the good stuff, and skip the crap.
 
Quote from Xspurt:

As we nudge into the major resistance (white horizontal on last chart) with the daily cycle in a weak phase there is the chance of an Engulfing signal.

A month or so back (on a different thread) I was amazed to discover that a number of ET'ers had misunderstood what an Engulfing Candle is. Even after I posted this link they still misunderstood what an Engulfer is...

http://www.candlestickforum.com/PPF/Parameters/12_61_/candlestick.asp

So I highlighted the formula but just got called an idiot...

The formula is relatively simple;
(O1>C1) and (O O1). Defined as the open of yesterday is greater than the close of yesterday. And the open today is less than the close of yesterday, And the close of today is greater than the open of yesterday.

It was the wicks that was throwing people off the correct view and the result was missing an Engulfer signal which can be one of the strongest signals when it is in context and ending a quality move.

One veteran believed there are no candle signals on range charts and this was rooted in not understanding the Engulfing signal. No Engulfers = no proper signals in his mind.

I've been using range bars for well over 10 years and the Candles don't actually know they are range - they think they are measuring movement so a signal on range is the same as tick, time or volume, but that is an aside. I use range intraday every day and the candle signals are the same high quality as any other chart.

I thought I'd mention this so if I refer to an Engulfer as I have done in the past, readers of this thread will understand what the real beast looks like and not miss out on what can be a glorious reversal signal.

Engulfers and Failed Engulfers are powerful signals. Failures are a big topic for another time and place but basically a failure is the last throw of the dice by the weak hands.
More...

now that I know xspurt = yoohoo not some bad porn actor I try to catch up with his past posts. The formula for bullish engulfing is obviously wrong, check out his formula for bearish engulfing
in the same link
The formula is exactly opposite of the Bullish Engulfing pattern formula. ( C1 >O1) and the(O>C1) and (C>O1)
More...

note: even the formula above is still slightly wrong, it should read
( C1 >O1) and (O>C1) and (C<O1)

thus Bullish Engulfing pattern formula should be ( O1 >C1) and (O < C1) and ( C > O1)
 
Quote from FreakofNature:

That is my problem with your approach here X, you speak about everything here except the gems themselves, then someone like RedTankEra comes along and strictly posts gems with a non bullshit approach, quite the contrast.

If you wanna help then help, but you like to speak in riddles, whenever someones tries to obtain a gem from you, it's always a, beyond the scope of this thread, or beyond what I had intended, etc, and instead we get well, the riddles and no gems. Why must it be cryptic, just post the good stuff, and skip the crap.
More...

My experience is different... I've found plenty of "gems"...

This thread is called "simplicity in TA"...What u percieve as cryptic may just be X not wanting to stray too far from the theme of the thread??.. also.. nothing wrong with throwing a few things in.. too give "food for thought".

I've found plenty here ... that with a bit of time and study... I've found to be gems!
Just the idea that something, as simple and seemingly inane as the T/line, can be so powerful, so precise ... has been a revelation to me.
I would never have got that from a TA book.

Cheers Roelof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top