clmacdougall

Sorry about that. It's your picture in post # 49 of this thread. Lower right hand document which is framed.

Pat, if you don't mind me asking, what is the Canadian document on the lower right of your picture. Having run a business here in Canada your document looks oddly familiar to ones I've received. Maybe it's not Canadian at all, just thought I'd ask. Thanks

I like it man, way to think!!

What isn't speculation? Who isn't speculating? Many people in the trades work without knowing if their going to get paid in full or at all for their work when finished. Banks give out loans based upon the probability of repayment. Corporations sign contracts with the belief that their fixed costs won't change dramatically, when in fact they could. There is no such thing as a job or position that is secure and if you think there is just ask Richard Nixon or any professional athelete who's on the verge of being replaced by a hot rookie. Trading is an admiral pursuit because knowingly or not you fascilitate an efficient market and if you're good than you're on the right side of that market most of the time.

Sorry about that, i thought it was a Wyckoff book I hadn't heard of.

Who wrote ,"The Order Book," ? Thanks

That's pretty intimidating Mysticforex!

UB, you put it eloquently as usual, "Today everybody can see the size of every transaction and further can see the motivation of the transaction." The motivation of the transaction is what must be attempted to be understood. There is no way this "motivation" can be understood by an outdated structural understanding of the market as attempted by the MP methodology, but what it theoretically tried to reveal was in earnest the truth of what can move the market in a single direction, instead of rotationally.

I would suggest you read the thread "The Evolution of Market Profile" I found it really helpful. Personally I feel MP hides more information than it reveals, but that's just my opinion.

Tams, I asked the question to you because from the outset of Spydertraders thread they've either ignored or made no room for discussion with those who oppose its "ïterative" methodology. I thought you might be able to explain why the concerns of others were misguided concerning this price/volume "Gaussian" understanding of market structure. The" horses mouth" isn't saying much and since you seem like you've run around the track a few times you're the closest thing to a horse I've got to talk to about this method you're obviously aware of.

As to where your opinion on the predictive abitities of Hersheys structuring of the markets would have lead myself or others: A) If your answer was a yes, that you believed in it's predictive abilities, you could have helped others to see why in your opinion it was valid in the face of opposing ideas for reasons that others don't yet recognize. B) If your answer was a no, showing that you didn't believe in it's predictive abilities than those of us who thought the same way would realize there was no further discussion necessary to discover if our opinions might not be right. Tams,calm down! Don't take these forums too seriously. To degrade others as being "naive.....not intelligent....manipulative.....evasive" just because we either don't agree or don't see eye to eye has no place in a "laboratory" and that's what TL is right?

Tams, the question was very simple. " Does the method work for you?" Granted that you don't have to answer it, but the question was still a simple one. As to it's intelligence, it was just simple curiousity.

Sorry Tams, I just read you wrong. My mistake!!

Say it ain't so Tams!! After all you've posted on TL, you're going to hang your hat on this method? Come on are you serious? With that being said I don't wish to be rude. If this structures the market into a tradeable form for you then it's good. The creation of a tradeable structure is the essence of successful trading as far as I'm concerned, if you find it in this method then great! Actually we're all kind of catching the coattails of truth and making a few bucks without really understanding why it works anyway.

I think you just gave a clear definition of a "pseudoscience." Something that subjectively is clear to you but is impossible to make a true predictive study of. As long as it works for you!!!

With all due respect Tams, you are pointing this newb in the direction of a methodology that prides itself in "iterative learning". It doesn't tell him to question, but to repeat the learning process if things aren't working out. So with that in mind it seems to me that your non answer concerning my simple question of whether the predictive method works or not is, "no." You are having to twist the methodology in order to make it somewhat reliable or predictive. Skinning this cat any other way is not an option to it's practitioners and can lead a newb on a bad bunny trail. Just my opinion.

Tams, does Spydertraders /Jack Hershey's method work for you? I've read through it a couple of times and my doubts lie in its use of time based price bars, the removal of the ETH from it's study parameters and the daily "U" shaped volume pattern that occurs in the RTH of the ES everyday no matter what and as such doesn't that diminish the value of the volume gaussian? Please let us know if it has predictive power as a complete study. Thank you

I made my first ever trade using an elliott wave count. I tripled my money in one trade on a sugar option in a day. But subsequently saw the elliott wave fail many times. I'm not so sure it's ideas are sound or predictive in nature, although I do agree with you that using multiple frames ( not necessarily time frames ) is essential to deciding upon bias, context and trend.

zdo, if you don't mind can you recommend any particular book when it comes to cycles. Sorry to be a little off topic, just wanted to see if you'd found anything useful. I'm at that stage in my studies. Thanks.

zdo, I wonder if "Future Trends from Past Cyles" by Brian Millard was of any use to you then? Just thought I'd ask.

If you can find the book you'd appreciate the amount of work put into the study. Every variable of the H&S pattern is analyzed and scrutinized in order to remove personal subjectivity from the equation and to objectively define the pattern and test it's predictability. It showed only modest results in 2 of 6 currencies and was disastrous when applied to over 100 randomly selected equities. The first study was performed by Kevin Chang and Carol Osler it was later confirmed by Lo et al. They further said Bulkowski's study was worthless because it failed to objectively define the H&S pattern and wandered off into the pseudo science of subjective TA.

Blowfish,I finished "Evidence Based Tecnical Analysis" about a week ago. You'd find the middle to be the most memorable part of the book I think. In it he outlines a good but complicated understanding of statistical analysis. Worthwhile but needs to be read a couple of times to really get it I think. The first part of the book is an historic timeline of the evolution of the objective scientific study method by which to evaluate supposed truths. Interesting but possibly not worthwhile. The last part of the book is just plain strange as he morphs together a study of 30 or 40 indicators based on fundamental and technical data to see whether an edge can be found through a combination of any of these. The answer he came to was no, but the conclusions he draws from the answer opens the door for TA in the future. The creation of a graph for an either overly complex or not complex enough trading methodology is really interesting, you'd probably appreciate that as well. Worth owning if these topics interest you.

Read "Evidence Based Technical Analysis" pages 151 - 161 concerning the Head and Shoulders pattern for an objective science based answer to the question of it's predictive abilities. A study based on 31 years worth of market data and over 3000 examples of the pattern proved it had no predictive ability whatsoever.

Do you use any part of it in your daily trading setups? I made tons of my own charts using his methodology a few years ago, I didn't find it useful, but I had not taken his course either.

Anybody else who cares to share their top 5 trading books, please feel free.