The Trouble With Scribbles
- Thread starter Buy1Sell2
- Start date
LOL! is all you can find is stuff from 40 years ago that doesn't even say anything? Most traders have evolved far beyond "turtles"--- I am sorry to see you are still stuck in the past. surf
This scribble was posted in the ES journal at 3:10 EDT:
At 3:34 I posted this:
This is the updated scribble showing the horizontal S/R lines I chose to focus upon, and how the initial scribble played out.
View attachment 151104
I know the OP and other scribble method detractors do not speak chartese. But for those who do, they know exactly what these graphs have to say about the quality of the OP's criticisms.
I am not understanding this-- there are two arrows on the initial chart-- no matter what way price moved it would be deemed "correct". I am not following -- surf
That's the link you provided. I couldn't care less about "turtles".
Good to hear. This is what I directed your attention to, showing the fundamental flaw of using charts for decision making when trading---
A price chart is an attempt to model relevant aspects of price change. Price change is not linear displacement, whether vertical, horizontal or oblique. Nonetheless, price change can be represented as vertical displacement and time elapsed as horizontal displacement. Such a model, however, invariably supports relationships that does not correspond to anything in the original process.The angular inclination of a trend on a price chart is a visually striking feature of this representation. Such angles have no intrinsic meaning for the price series, but this is one of the many factors (along with our facility for pattern recognition and wishful thinking) that contributes to our interpreting more from price charts than rigorous testing reveals is there.
- William Eckhardt
If you're referring to the quote you provided and not to the link -- which did not apply to whatever claim you're making -- none of it is relevant.
Charts are simply a means of illustrating the balance between demand and supply. If traders read anything else into them, that's the traders' error. Patterns and indicators have nothing to do with the SLA/AMT. But neither you nor BS would know that since you haven't bothered to read it.
Most of the popular prejudice against charts undoubtedly is due to the fact that many people mistakenly attempt to use charts mechanically — without judgment. They endeavor to draw diagrams or imaginary geometrical patterns on their charts, or apply arbitrary rules or systems such as “oscillators” and other impractical notions. Such methods are wrong. They lead only to errors, losses and discouragement. Therefore, you must remember this: When you study charts look for the motive behind the action which the chart portrays. Aim to interpret the behaviorof the market and of stocks not the fanciful patterns ("gaps," "horns," "flags," "pennants," etc.) which the charts may accidentally form.
--Richard Wyckoff
Last edited:
I'll post this again, since it was a hundred posts ago.
dbphoenix said:
"TA is not the use of past price and volume to make predictions about future price.
TA is the study of price behavior. What the trader does as a result of that study is outside the purview of TA."
DB, I have a question. While I'm not new to TA, I have a lot to learn and your following quote confuses me, and I'm sure would confuse others: "TA is not the use of past price and volume to make predictions about future price".
Maybe I'm misreading, but, what about "measured moves" and should price targets based on supply/demand (TA) be thrown out? Thanks.
Technical analysis is the study of price behavior. While anything that relates to price behavior could be called "technical analysis", most of what is called technical analysis is not essential to it or even necessary. One needn't know anything about "patterns" and/or "indicators" in order to observe price behavior and formulate hypotheses regarding why it is moving as it is. Indicators have been around for decades, but technical analysis has been around for centuries.
As for prediction, one cannot even begin to predict what price is going to do until he thoroughly understands what it is currently doing. But while it's current behavior is in the market, i.e., the high of the day is the high of the day regardless of what one thinks about it or who sees it, any predictions that are made by the observer/trader are in the mind.
This brings into question anything that may originate with raw data but which is interpreted by the mind: measured moves, risk:reward ratios, price targets, patterns (too many to list), bar intervals (1m, 5m, 15m etc), candles, indicators (hundreds of them), and so on.
In order to distinguish between what is real, i.e., in the market, and what is gurubabble, one must test these propositions in order to determine whether or not they have any value at all and, if they seem to, whether or not they have enough value to enable the trader to incorporate them profitably, e.g., is the probability of success of whatever it is high enough for me to screw around with it or is it just another half-baked idea that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't but not nearly enough for me to trade real size with it?
Once one does this testing, he finds that much of what is commonly-held to be true about TA is wishful thinking. But the essentials of TA, the study of price behavior, the results of demand/supply imbalances, are today what they have been for thousands of years.
The obscure we see eventually; the completely apparent takes longer.
-- Edward R. Murrow
dbphoenix said:
"TA is not the use of past price and volume to make predictions about future price.
TA is the study of price behavior. What the trader does as a result of that study is outside the purview of TA."
DB, I have a question. While I'm not new to TA, I have a lot to learn and your following quote confuses me, and I'm sure would confuse others: "TA is not the use of past price and volume to make predictions about future price".
Maybe I'm misreading, but, what about "measured moves" and should price targets based on supply/demand (TA) be thrown out? Thanks.
Technical analysis is the study of price behavior. While anything that relates to price behavior could be called "technical analysis", most of what is called technical analysis is not essential to it or even necessary. One needn't know anything about "patterns" and/or "indicators" in order to observe price behavior and formulate hypotheses regarding why it is moving as it is. Indicators have been around for decades, but technical analysis has been around for centuries.
As for prediction, one cannot even begin to predict what price is going to do until he thoroughly understands what it is currently doing. But while it's current behavior is in the market, i.e., the high of the day is the high of the day regardless of what one thinks about it or who sees it, any predictions that are made by the observer/trader are in the mind.
This brings into question anything that may originate with raw data but which is interpreted by the mind: measured moves, risk:reward ratios, price targets, patterns (too many to list), bar intervals (1m, 5m, 15m etc), candles, indicators (hundreds of them), and so on.
In order to distinguish between what is real, i.e., in the market, and what is gurubabble, one must test these propositions in order to determine whether or not they have any value at all and, if they seem to, whether or not they have enough value to enable the trader to incorporate them profitably, e.g., is the probability of success of whatever it is high enough for me to screw around with it or is it just another half-baked idea that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't but not nearly enough for me to trade real size with it?
Once one does this testing, he finds that much of what is commonly-held to be true about TA is wishful thinking. But the essentials of TA, the study of price behavior, the results of demand/supply imbalances, are today what they have been for thousands of years.
The obscure we see eventually; the completely apparent takes longer.
-- Edward R. Murrow
Not surprised.
True, you are not following. But not true that either would be deemed "correct".
This showed that as of 3:10 EDT, there were two trade opportunities potentially on the horizon for me:
1) Pullback to 54.75, and I would have bought the first retrace after the reversal, or
2) a break below 54.75 and I would short short the first retrace after the breakout (that is what happened), and finally
3) Had price never tradeds to 54.75 and instead gone sideways or up there would be no trade for me.
Your problem, marketsurfer, is that the reason you do not see value in TA is that you demand for it to predict. It does not predict, imo. Frankly, I am not even comfortable with the term "forecast." But, imo. I can use it to put the odds squarely on my side. I do this by observing where price has struck its limits, and then waiting for the signal (the retrace-continuation) after price either holds a range limit or breaks through the range limit.
This is no different than what traders such as Linda Raschke have been doing for years. The following is from a recent interview - so your argument that this is archaic would hold no water.
I would also submit to you that that chart posted at 3:10 EDT was far more deserving of being deemed "real time" analysis than all the "I short 50. I long 70" stuff that passes for real time calls at the ES thread - where the majority (not all, but the vast majority) of trades are "called" after the entry is made.
I would also submit that that chart is far a more transparent representaion as to what we scribblers do than any of the pronouncements of Buy1Sell2 has shown, and to whom you have taken such a shine. He has not shared his trade method - which has something to do with twenty indicators lining up across three time frames and even then the best he can come up with is using a 40 point ES stop loss on every trade with no idea how to take a profit.
Last edited:
I am done with this thread. Carry on folks, we are on different planets. Best wishes to everyone, regardless!! surf