Quote from PointOne:
1. How often does a 5 minute bar's price action take you by surprise? (I don't mean due to a distraction but while you are monitoring with your usual diligence, using the complete tool set.)
At least once a day. Some days as many as two to three times. As I said early on in this Journal, a trader should
not have as a goal:
error free trading. A trader should strive to
quickly, and accurately recognize their error (and this recognition should come
before "price moves against my position") and fix any action taken as a result of the error.
Quote from PointOne:
2. Can you remember when 5 min bars did take you by surprise more often? What do you put this down to mainly?
Because I started with equities, and not futures directly, my surprises came on 30 minute bars. Last November, I completed a thorough review of each trade (from Journal One). Without a doubt, each and every 'surprise' resulted from my failure to recognize
change. However, unlike the way I have recommended individuals follow
this Journal, my surprises resulted in financial loss. With futures, my surprises now come when I
know I am
right and I ignore the signals provided by the market. On occasion, I make an error as to the price formation leading me to 'see' something that isn't there (A chatroom log exists where this happened, and I immediately stopped trading in an effort to determine
why the error occurred).
Quote from PointOne:
3. What were the breakthroughs (technical and attitudinal) you made to get to a point where you know what must happen next during every bar (in addition to screen time)?
I'll give you an example.
One day, while visiting Tucson, I looked at Jack and said, "What's all this nonsense about YM leading the ES? Look right here on this chart. Clearly the YM is heading in an
opposite direction than the ES. As such, this YM leads the ES stuff is total rubbish."
Jack's response:
"The YM is a leading indicator of Price."
Huh? WTF does
that mean??
Of course, I sat there wondering what the hell I was supposed to say next, and recall thinking at the time,
"The old man is off his rocker! I can
see right there the YM
doesn't lead the ES!"
A few months later, everything clicks into place, and I realize, it wasn't Jack who had the problem.
I had the damn problem! I was interpreting everything Jack said through my own mental filters. I decided, on my own, that "YM leads the ES"
must mean, "The YM
always leads the ES" rather than, "The YM leads the ES
at points of change.
Now, some might say that Jack could have been more clear. Instead of blaming the professor, I chose instead to realize that anytime I encountered an obstacle, all I needed to do was attempt to determine what possible meanings Jack wanted to convey, and then apply the different interpretations to the problem (this is why I have always advised looking at a problem from different points of view). Sooner or later, I'd arrive at the
correct meaning and / or interpretation. I'd know I'd arrived at the
correct interpretations Because, when i did, the problem was solved. By following this 'problem solving paradigm' I then had the ability to remove my own mental bias from the equation, and determine the true intent of Jack's posts or advice given in person.
From that time forward,
all of Jack's posts have become crystal clear.
I hope you find the above information useful.
- Spydertrader