Trades for Tuesday

[macal425]

6 times, not 2, not 4.

 

[Wappers2]

Quote from macal425:

6 times, not 2, not 4.

6 times NOT 2 is NOT 4.

It would be NOT 12.

 

[zboy2854A]

Quote from macal425:

6 times, not 2, not 4.

In total, yes 6. 4 the day before and 2 an hour before. According to Walter, his accuracy improves the day of, hence the additional two times I suppose. Again, I'm not ready to credit or disparage his work in total yet, but to post a call 10 minutes before one of said posted times and it turn out to be exact at least buys some benefit of the doubt in my book, at least until further investigation.

Again, I will be interested to see if any kind of major break or move occurs today at 11:25. If so, I believe there would sufficient reason to investigate these methodologies further. If not, we can probably just chalk up yesterday's call to incredible luck.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from zboy2854A:



Again, I will be interested to see if any kind of major break or move occurs today at 11:25. If so, I believe there would sufficient reason to investigate these methodologies further. If not, we can probably just chalk up yesterday's call to incredible luck.

Whether anything occurs or not is largely irrelevant. And as to making the "call" ten minutes before, that actually makes the call easier. Resistance had already been established at that price beforehand. And price was well within the resistance range. Therefore, anything occurring at that level would, according to his so-called definitions, be a "tradeable moment".

Further, breaking through that resistance would constitute a successful call. The ES did in fact break through. If it had continued its advance, it would also have been considered a success, but that would not have been required. In fact, along with the NQ, it failed. But since nothing is said about direction, the call is successful regardless of the outcome. And since the time can be off by a considerable margin, it isn't even necessary to be accurate regarding time, not to mention price or direction.

--Db

 

[shadowtrader]

Quote from dbphoenix:



Whether anything occurs or not is largely irrelevant. And as to making the "call" ten minutes before, that actually makes the call easier. Resistance had already been established at that price beforehand. And price was well within the resistance range. Therefore, anything occurring at that level would, according to his so-called definitions, be a "tradeable moment".

Further, breaking through that resistance would constitute a successful call. The ES did in fact break through. If it had continued its advance, it would also have been considered a success, but that would not have been required. In fact, along with the NQ, it failed. But since nothing is said about direction, the call is successful regardless of the outcome. And since the time can be off by a considerable margin, it isn't even necessary to be accurate regarding time, not to mention price or direction.

--Db

Not to mention the fact that the index is not specified.

 

[zboy2854A]

Quote from dbphoenix:



Whether anything occurs or not is largely irrelevant. And as to making the "call" ten minutes before, that actually makes the call easier. Resistance had already been established at that price beforehand. And price was well within the resistance range. Therefore, anything occurring at that level would, according to his so-called definitions, be a "tradeable moment".

Further, breaking through that resistance would constitute a successful call. The ES did in fact break through. If it had continued its advance, it would also have been considered a success, but that would not have been required. In fact, along with the NQ, it failed. But since nothing is said about direction, the call is successful regardless of the outcome. And since the time can be off by a considerable margin, it isn't even necessary to be accurate regarding time, not to mention price or direction.

--Db

How do you reckon that if a major move occurs at the time predicted, that it is irrelevant? It sounds like you've already made up your mind about Walter's information, which is fine.

However, I might point out that as we speak, his 11:25 time that he mentioned yesterday just happened to coincide exactly to the minute with the the Dow making a decisive break below from 7480 to new lows for the day (as well as the NAZ and S&P). Pretty darn intriguing if you ask me, considering the call was made yesterday, and today that stated time is the same time to the minute that the Dow finally broke below that support. One day with a call that was accurate to the minute could be coincidence. Two days in a row, and IMO this is getting interesting.

Now, certainly anyone watching their charts doesn't need this information to see the break below the support and hop on short. I just find it interesting the accuracy of the timing coinciding with significant moves in the indices down to the minute.

 

[CaroKann]

now all we need is > 50% consistency over, say, the next month.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from zboy2854A:



How do you reckon that if a major move occurs at the time predicted, that it is irrelevant? It sounds like you've already made up your mind about Walter's information, which is fine.

I wouldn't say I've "made up my mind". But I'm not gullible, either. What about all the other calls made?

Members are referred to the old Something Very Simplistic thread begun by Quah. He had amazing success using a variety of random entry using Fibonacci numbers. At least for a while.

--Db

 

[zboy2854A]

Quote from CaroKann:

now all we need is > 50% consistency over, say, the next month.

Indeed.

 

[Walther]

Thanks to those who took a time and impartially looked at results. You all know that in geometry even slight change in angle can move resulting intersection away from actual intersection. That is why 11:25 was late a few minutes. I did not post other times because of argument of randomness. Today price action probably scared everybody away so I do not expect large volume to be there but take a look at 14:25.
Walter