You know. I've said this many times. I think you really do find merit in Jack's work, but have tried like hell to keep others from finding the same merit you have. Thanks for providing proof for a long held belief. - Spydertrader
I base none of my trades in NQ on SCT. But I have some of it coded up for comic relief when the day gets slow. At least I CODE it, not annotate with a blunt crayon. And I keep a small window up with ES so I can follow what you guys are doing. It is a lesson in the dangers of the ambiguity of fuzzy rules.
Right. You use Guassian peaks to alert you to a short trade, which you then post as 'where the market is headed' but really, you don't use it as it is too dangerous. Again, thanks for the hilarity (clarity?). If I didn't know better, I'd say I just busted Jack's most vocal detractor using Jack's material to trade. How ironic. - Spydertrader
To be perfectly clear, I coded up volume peaks in NQ to determine if they have any validity as unambiguous leading indicators of directional price change. My conclusion so far is that they do not, based on the increased resolution permitted by a one minute chart, which avoids the need for a crayon. I merely mentioned that one popped off in my ES window to point out that YOUR methodology suggested a short. I commented on the ES chart because I figured I had a far better than even chance of being right based on how NQ makes a bottom. NQ fooled me today, too, but I wasn't trading bacause of the low volume.
I guess I was busy drawing channels or something and miss this collection of posts in 'Looking but not seeing...??' thread