Marko23

This complete post is a very suitable opening for 2010. For many reasons I can confirm your findings from my own experience trading. EW is an ex post (hindsight) analyzing technique. If one reads EW literature carefully, every pattern needs a confirmation move to make the pattern reliable. But as a trader, you cannot wait for this move to complete. If you wait, the trading opportunity is gone. Only as an analyst (or guru) you have the neccessary time to wait for pattern completion. The reason for this is the fractal nature of prices movements. When price moves from one major level to another, it almost never moves in a straight line. The movement is broken into fractals, which are broken into fractals, which are broken into fractals .... The breakup is driven by market forces and by chance. EW tries to guess the full move from the pieces of the puzzle (fractals) that are currently visible. This is in vain since chance is involved. Fractals always break a large move into smaller segments. They never construct a large move from known smaller pieces.

Congratulations, this is a very favorable end-of-year balance! It ist so difficult to transport a chain of ideas without loss from one mind to another, especially in trading with its thousands of methods, indicators etc.

In the 5m (not 15!) timescale, the up move has an impulse structure, for now at least.

2nd Short at 1st target, got out to early. 62% seems to work in this situation.

No progress on the 2nd Short. I would be out now. I'm not trading this, just looking at it. Maybe sometimes next year...

New possibility for Short

No progress with EurUSD

If I may add the "big picture"..

Yes, and Neely is too axiomatic. His methods lacks the flexibility of the markets. Thales, your last posts are full of insights! Everybody here should read them.

Yes, your "Don't buy..." comment resembles my "b24x" rule. One doesn't want to buy a "4", and in this situation it probably will become a "4". "And anything that is more useful after the fact is not something I find particularly useful." But gurus, who never post their trades in real time, like it a lot.

From my experience (the Neely way), EW is definitely not for predicting, but for analyzing after the fact. My rule of thumb is: don't trade b 2 4 x and differentiate with 62% . The most important and hardest to learn: don't mix degrees.

How true! This point is overlooked by many self-declared gurus. One can only win if more money trades in the same direction.

Another small move up to resistance is more probable in my opinion.

If a climb to 134.50-60 is the "plan" then this move will probably not be a straight line. Price moves are normally "broken" into fractals, so one can assume a movement in three or five segments. The second of these segments will retrace the first. The "plan" remains valid as long as the retracement is smaller than about 2/3 of the first segment. The "2/3" is a common guess: fibs guess 61.8%, Gann guesses 62.5%, speedlines guess 66% and you can find additional theories for this situation.

Ok, complete misunderstanding. I'll switch to read-only mode.

I never made any suggestion regarding your representation of anything. But your reply is outright arrogant to me. While reading in some other threads I found this post In science there is a principle called "Occam's razor". One may apply that to trading too. In my opinion that helps to see a clear picture of a market.

Typical Price is not (H+L+C) as you quote. Typical Price is (H+L+C)/3 . That is an arithmetic mean value from usual understanding. Its maximum value is H - (H-L)/3, if C == H . Its minimum value is L + (H-L)/3, if C == L .

Quote from stockcharts regarding CCI: Calculation There are 4 steps involved in the calculation of the CCI: 1. Calculate the last period's Typical Price (TP) = (H+L+C)/3 where H = high, L = low, and C = close. 2. Calculate the 20-period Simple Moving Average of the Typical Price (SMATP). 3. Calculate the Mean Deviation. First, calculate the absolute value of the difference between the last period's SMATP and the typical price for each of the past 20 periods. Add all of these absolute values together and divide by 20 to find the Mean Deviation. 4. The final step is to apply the Typical Price (TP), the Simple Moving Average of the Typical Price (SMATP), the Mean Deviation and a Constant (.015) to the following formula: CCI = ( Typical Price - SMATP ) / ( .015 X Mean Deviation ) ------------------ Step 1 smoothes Step 2 smoothes the value from Step 2 Step 3 smoothes the deviation Step 4 introdudes the constant 0.15 out of thin air Just my four cents on CCI. I can see no difference to other dumb algorithms and will not bring up this topic again.

After a trade is finished, I prefer to go back to the wider context view of the last three days, because the details of the last hour may have given me a wrong impression; even when the trade was a winner. Here one can see that that upward channel has been left on the down side. So a coming up move will initially be a correction in the wider down move; one can simply watch it in this context. An hour later No signal and no trade; price below the resistance zone from Monday.

Thanks for your answer. Certainly I didn't want to discourage anyone and I'm often impatient with others. The indicator trap caught me several times and it took additional efforts to leave them alone (again). These mental efforts may be used for better purposes.

2nd target reached after 75 min

This following example ist taken from FGBL during last week. FGBL stands for Future German Bund Long, a treasury future traded at Eurex. After last Monday Close FGBL had moved down for 1 1/2 day and up for another 1 1/2 day. Thursday's high is not taken out. The down move has been retraced a little more than half way. To prepare for Tuesday one looks at Monday's details. The vertical scale is enlarged from 150 ticks to 76 ticks, almost doubled. An opportunity for Thuesday Open is clearly visible.

The search for indicators finally has reached this thread. This seach is completely needless and will never come to an end for obvious reasons: - an indicator merely transforms price action into another picture. This vital information is within the price action, no need to move to another representation - the parameter(s) for this transformation can always be fitted perfectly to the near past. They will never suit the near future because markets constantly change - the transformation normally is a dumb algorithm, which nether recognizes change nor adapts to it - because of the dumb algorithm, people start to draw "clues" from divergences. This distorts the picture even more - there are thousands of indicators. Which one do you choose? There is a much better solution to this dilemma: your brain. Why not follow Thales' suggestion and take the patience to train it for some time.

sorry, I don't have a single clue what or whom you are writing about.

Thanks for this hint. I'll take a look at Trader's Press web site. The projection is just another piece of the daily puzzle. I came accross it when I tried to find rules of thumb from the Elliott stuff. One important rule over there is: wave 3 of an impulse cannot be the smallest of waves 1, 3, and 5. Therefore when I see C > 100%A it may be "3" > 100%"1" and a "5" may be following.