joshdance

Yes.

I use NT and IRT. (damn this 20 character limit, c'mon mods)

Every trade will incur a monetary risk. You want to ensure that your potential profit (reward) is large enough to offset the risk incurred, over a large sample of trades. For example, if you consistently risk $200 to make $200, but you are only right about half the time, then you will not make money. You would not likely loan someone $10,000 to grow a business (risk), if the business only had $5,000 in sales for the year. Trading is foremost about risk management. If risk is not managed, it only takes one big mistake to wipe you out. People do not play Russian Roulette for one simple reason: the chance of losing may be small, but the risk is too high to play the game.

What can I say, I love me some sweet price action Or I could just call it a "chart"

Like the charts I attached in this post: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/12081-close-bar-meaningless-6.html#post139955

how do you define "significant," and how would you test and then collect this evidence?

I agree of course with your opening sentence, and your last post about drilling down to various time frames. This simply hides or shows more detail. Anyone who uses a chart will have to make this decision on "zoom level" (and I also have my zoom levels), regardless of how he chooses to present the data. But with your 10 minute chart example, certainly you would agree that this is purely anecdotal observation. Those with 15 minute charts might feel the same way you do, but logically it would conflict with your 10 minute anecdotal observation. And certainly it's objectively clear and provable that on the large majority of days, there are times when the market is always more active: at the RTH open and close, for example. But is 11:40 more significant than 11:45? According to you, yes. However, I have no reason to logically draw this conclusion, and I have no real evidence to affirm or deny this.

I can't recall exactly what I said either, but it was more related to the mode of any statistical distribution. The mode is not calculated in such a way that it is defined as continuous, whereas the mean is, for example. So in your first picture, 2940 is the mode. At what volume, I don't know, but let's assume 1000 traded at 2940. Now let's assume that 950 have traded at 2922. If the market trades 45 more at 2922, 2940 is still the mode/POC. No shift yet. Now, if only 6 more trade at 2922, we will have a POC shift. Yet, if 6 more don't trade there, we won't. A statistical measure that is influenced so greatly by only a few in the data set is not "sound" or "robust" as a measure of value, IMO. What we have is a bimodal distribution, and both points may be significant (or not), but a tiny variation such as this does not suddenly affect how I view things. The mean is not this way, which is why the VWAP is a continuous, more "stable" measure of value for the distribution. Thanks for posting these charts 5DAW. It seems though that you could just as easily watch the profile on its normal axis and call it "uneven breasts" or "alligator mouth" or "man with a big nose" and have basically the same thing. But if it helps to view it that way, there's no harm in rotating the monitor (except that it's hard to move the mouse up and down and watch it more left or right when your screen is this way, and that you have to learn to read numbers veritcally more quickly ). It still seems that you have the more recent (there's the time variable) profile on top, hence you still have some notion of time here. Of the three variables to consider, only price can decrease; the other two can only increase (until you unveil that time machine you've been working on!) ... This, I will drink to. But still, I do appreciate other points of view from those who disagree with me on this.

:rofl: ... checkmate!

Couldn't have said it better myself nirofree; this is basically how I approach it as well and what works best for me.

It's pointless to argue with someone like you gosu, who has it all figured out. So, I'll just say this: after multiple reads of multiple P/V Hershey threads over a year and a half ago, I determined, and I'll put it politely, that this method was not for me. I have done the work, yet I thought it would be interesting to get a different perspective from someone using a derivative of it (yes, I've forgotten the terminology as I have not seen it in well over a year). This member of "the herd" had a very good day, even with my waaay inside the box thinking and OLs (that's Herd-speak for "Objective Line", aka "Horizontal Line"), and I hope yours was good as well. I hope you enjoy your weekend, gosu.

You are the one who attempted to assign a meaning to this steve, not me. All I'm saying is, if you have a theory, back it up with some data.

But Asia was fast asleep, and markets not yet open. On the surface this sounds logical, but there were only about 8000 contracts traded up in 57s, and in the 51-53 area there are only about another 15K or so. So, there are, at best, only 20K or so who hold a basis at 51 or higher, and that's the extreme case. I suppose if what you say is correct, then these "informed" participants will be expecting the market to move lower and not back up above their entry basis (otherwise, why would they open positions so early?). If this isn't logical, I'd like to hear another view on it. Wouldn't the "informed" participants commit more capital, and therefore must have done so much earlier, before the close? If it's not clear, I definitely see the fundamental basis for your hypothesis (that Europe is screwed). However, logically there's just not enough capital that has been demonstrated to have been committed for the scenario to make sense, and that's what I'm trying to reconcile and receive clarity on. Sometimes I hear these ideas, but rarely see it backed up with any real evidence or logical support, and that's what I'm looking to find here steve.

So, the LOD was broken in the closing minutes, and proved to be a complete fake. In your opinion, what are the implications of (and differences between) each of the following: 1) Market reversing a few ticks above the LOD and moving up (maybe 54.25 or so in today's scenario, 3 ticks above prior double bottom low) 2) Market reversing right at the LOD or one/two ticks below (53.50 today), and moving up 3) Market making significant new lows, and quickly going back above and moving up. I'll define significant as 20-30% of the day's range, as in today's fakeout at the end--new low by 8 ticks, with a < 40 tick prior range

I've closed this at yesterday's close for a nice 9 points, those make me smile No midday blahs today.

Anyone else looking to buy back here? I'm long 49.75 at prior R, ahead of the 50% and VWAP, but only got 1/2 a position due to uncertainty about how far it might pull back, looking to buy 48 for the other half, but this may be it if it wants to go, all subject to midday bleh's of course.

Right, bad choice of words on my part. Got 52 just now, for a nice 3 pointer to 55. It was a "decisive" action I have not heard of Greenshot, but snagit is quite easy to do what I need it to do. An annotation like you do, I can probably do in snagit in 1-4 minutes, depending on how much there is going on. I do not have video on mine but maybe I need to upgrade, thanks for the heads up.

Yes Snagit (and Jing for short videos) ... are you asking me how long, or as you asking me to do one? I guess how long depends on what I'm annotating Wild move up so far. Tried to get long at 11am, at 45 on the VWAP test and higher low, but was about 1 second too late pulling trigger, and did not chase it. Could have made the choice to, but chose instead to wait, but when the market does what it did, it's not really a time for patience I suppose.

That test of yesterday's low didn't leave much room for wiggling around. You either got out of shorts (which I did at 45) or had to get long quick if opening a long...

Dude, sounds awesome, hope you are having a blast.

Oh ok -- well I posted in another thread yesterday about the fact that I took that very long, so I was not sure.

I agree with most of this N. It's just that people prepare in different ways. You have your hypotheses that you post in advance. For some people, that's simply too much. I appreciate that your way works well for you, but for some people like me, too much detail and too much planning can draw a curtain over other possibilities, and that makes it difficult to adapt. I'm not advocating blind trading or recklessness. I'm simply acknowledging that there is more than one approach, and "homework" the night before is often invalid by morning, and "homework" at 8:15 can be rendered null by 9:30. On PR vs. IR, yes I'm familiar with the concept and the primary proponent of this idea. It is logical and makes sense.

Horizontal lines are also the only lines which have no slope and therefore are the same on all charts, which cannot be said for trend lines. You might call horizontal lines "objective lines" and trend lines "subjective lines." I know you disagree with this, but unless all people have the same method of drawing a trendline, then they are subjective, and this is a fact. I "KNOW" this gosu. Can you post a shot of the chart you're talking about in your first paragraph? I just can't picture it because of your foreign language. Also, is there a thread which has a concise collection of these terms and how they are applied, short of the black hole nonsense that is the "price/volume relationship" thread?

Have not stopped by or looked at charts here much lately but happened to see this one N, thanks. You mention my name in there.. was that an error?

You're exactly right, and it wasn't my intention to turn it into that, only to see a chart as the pattern was identified, and THEN the result, not ONLY the result. I will leave by posting a pattern that is nameless. I guess I would call it "Low Probability But Worth A Shot" -- I would normally wait a bit longer, but I must go to bed. * Entry1 shows the bigger picture with prior support from 4/10 (low in 52s) and 4/23 (low 54s), with yet another ambiguous target (Monday highs). * Entry2 shows volume support, granted, nothing to write home about, but at least some buyers are in this area. * Entry3 shows that this is the 50% retrace from today's earlier LOD to HOD, and for kicks it's right at the VWAP too. * The other chart shows the RTH bar -- a big, juicy, reversal bar that many have unknowingly taken from Martin Pring without knowing who he is, a "pinbar." The heavy volume is a plus. The chances of my stop at 51.25 not trading are slim, but given that I have to go to bed, it will have to do, and I would hate to wake up in a foul mood with a larger loss than what I'm willing to give it here (10 ticks. I would expect that there will be a LOT of buyers buying above yesterday's high in the 62s. Whether there will be follow through or not, I have no idea. It's too tempting to not break the high and at least lure in some buyers, even if the intention of the market is not to go north. This is my price pattern. I'd feel much better if this area were being hit at 3AM when the exchanges in Europe were opening, but it is what it is. The beauty is, this type of pattern occurs very often, and this example need not work. Even if it fails miserably, something can be learned from it, and that is the point. First thing would be, wait for more confirmation if possible, alas, it's not at this hour for me. Obsidian, I will leave your thread peacefully and hopefully not offending too much! I wish you much success in your trading.