I think those are all reasonable points, for sure. I just think that price, time and volatility can be arrayed into a trading methodology in a less subjective manner. I think that using ACD will most definitely cut down on the number of mistakes a trader makes by massively cutting down the number of places you even look for opportunity, which is probably the thing that trips up traders the most. That alone is worth a heck of a lot and almost anyone will gain something from reading the book.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The ACD Method
- Thread starter sbrowne126
- Start date
I think those are all reasonable points, for sure. I just think that price, time and volatility can be arrayed into a trading methodology in a less subjective manner. I think that using ACD will most definitely cut down on the number of mistakes a trader makes by massively cutting down the number of places you even look for opportunity, which is probably the thing that trips up traders the most. That alone is worth a heck of a lot and almost anyone will gain something from reading the book.
Quote from Samsara:
I agree with your point that Fisher does treat the A and C levels as entry points in the book, but it'd be hard to add all the discretionary grey areas in there without being confusing.
I think baggerlord's thinking on price ranges where normal volatility = noise makes good sense in this context. When price goes beyond certain thresholds, the character of the instrument changes. But that's often not enough to put together a black and white entry and exit methodology.
For instance, when an A level is confirmed, I look at what time of the day it was confirmed and how price behaved to get there. Was the opening range tight or was it wide with a straight, early run right to the A level? In the latter case, I would not enter on a confirmation, if at all, because the probability of a pull back is a lot higher. I'd watch how steep the first pull back is and how long price stays there, then make a decision.
This is just my own way of thinking though, and Fisher adds some layers -- like with the pivots, number line, and first-hour pivot range -- that give usable reference points and filters. I don't use those as much because I've been trading for a while and am used to trusting my own discretion in some areas, but I think they make sense according to the other theories of market behavior that I agree with (like auction market theory).
Stops, though, I think are not discussed enough and are pretty hard to get right, particularly during the overnight session in certain futures instruments.
I agree that he kind of whiffs a bit on stops, aside from the initial exits at points B and D. In my experience, the initial stops can be set the same, but the way you trail stops for longs and shorts needs to be different, so they aren't as symmetrical as the rest of ACD is.
The number line concept is interesting (although, again, as a reader not privy to the proprietary research he's done, I thought +/-9 seemed a bit arbitrary as the demarcation point), and I'd be interested to see if I could add that as a filter to avoid counter-trend trades when the numberline is indicative of a broader trend. It could help my results at the margin and I'm always looking for ways to avoid (or take only fractional positions in) trades that are less likely to succeed.
Here we go...liftoff.
All risk assets seem to be moving in unison on this gap higher. We'll have to wait till tomorrow to see where the real leadership is.
Quote from logic_man:
I agree that he kind of whiffs a bit on stops, aside from the initial exits at points B and D. In my experience, the initial stops can be set the same, but the way you trail stops for longs and shorts needs to be different, so they aren't as symmetrical as the rest of ACD is.
The number line concept is interesting (although, again, as a reader not privy to the proprietary research he's done, I thought +/-9 seemed a bit arbitrary as the demarcation point), and I'd be interested to see if I could add that as a filter to avoid counter-trend trades when the numberline is indicative of a broader trend. It could help my results at the margin and I'm always looking for ways to avoid (or take only fractional positions in) trades that are less likely to succeed.
Yeah, I think Mav's done an outstanding job of illustrating the benefits of the number line -- and aside from that, half of a course-worth of beneficial material that goes far beyond the book itself. Never seen something like this on ET.
I'm personally still missing opportunities by not incorporating the number line. For long-term trades, the price action idea behind it is really sound.
Quote from Maverick74:
All risk assets seem to be moving in unison on this gap higher. We'll have to wait till tomorrow to see where the real leadership is.
Yeah disappointing for my positions. I'm assuming there will be follow through after the open that will push my shorts right back to break even.
Quote from Maverick74:
Here we go...liftoff.
What's up John. It's been a while, but I remember you from the option trader meetings in Lakeview. I've been out of trading for quite a while. I didn't make much money before, but didn't lose much either.
You still in Chicago? Are options still your main game? I've been looking at polishing up some of my old ideas, and maybe even new ones which brought me to this thread. Keep in touch
Regards
Yll
Quote from baggerlord:
AUD/USD is looking played out from my perspective for this month. It is showing a little strength now at an area where I would expect the downtrend to fail for the time being. If today can close above the daily A level I am interested in a long on Monday if we get further strength.
Why couldn't I get this lucky when I was maxing leverage back in the day lol. Out at 5x risk and a short trading week for me.
This is yet another reason why I don't take monthly A down trades late in the month. I see this happen time and time again. No follow through.