Thanks so much Jack, I appreciate the words. Already in the short life of the thread I have received advice to give up simply because others have failed in their attempt. I pay them no heed. I will examine the journal more closely regarding this and other issues. Have a nice Labor Day weekend, RoughTrader
Roughtrader, start at the Forest level (the channel) and work your way back. The whole key to this method is noting the differences in the market, which by their subtle occurance, changes the reality of the Now. Everyone always catches the similarities, but catching these subtle differences makes all the difference in the world. They occur in every market, on every time frame - provided sufficient liquidity exists. - Spydertrader
Spydertrader, I don't keep up with you and Jack that much so I was curious about something: what is your affiliation with him? Do you two trade together? I've noticed you seem to speak on his behalf regarding his methods.
Years ago while reading through the USENET archives I stumbled onto a series of posts which described the relationship Volume had to Price. At the time, the post seemed to generate significant controversy (not unlike today). After studying the various posts made by Jack, and instituting a rule set with equities which I felt followed the intent of Jack's posts, I found I could profit quite handsomely. A serendipidous conversation (via paltalk) one evening motivated me to 'pay foreward', (as requested) that which I had learned. As a result, I started a journal on ET in an effort to transfer the experience I had attained. While I never expected to still post after 3 years, I find it quite rewarding to lend a hand simply by keeping a promise made over 4 years ago. Since then, I've not only made enough money to place me in a lifestyle I enjoy, I have also had the opportunity (thanks to Jack) to meet some truly incredible individuals. In the end, it all comes down to thanking someone, who by their very nature shared a truly incredible piece of insight, but also, shared the importance of helping others. It's been a fantastic debt to repay. - Spydertrader
Spydertrader A three year publicly posted track record is not enough. We demand an independently audited certified copy of the last ten years tax returns, the last three years annual statements from your broker, and a live statement on youtube from your mother and a priest that you are telling the truth.
Please provide some examples. If by ambiguity you mean that as new data comes in you have to respond to it and you must therefore reverse position as the market dictates (having anticipated this possibility for change of course), then yes, there is ambiguity in this system to the extent that there is ambiguity in the market. It's called price discovery for a reason. Just because you can't see the signs for change does not mean they aren't there.
There are only two detractors, but they use multiple alias to appear as if there are many people sharing their same opinion. You can tell by their diction.
PointyOne, it is largely a philosophical difference. Let me give you an example. One of my favorite NQ setups is to short (long) an afternoon BO of the morning high (low). I just expressed that setup the way Jack or Spydie would an FTT (ignoring for the moment the volume condition, if any). I did not state the minimum or maximum number of ticks to BO for this setup to qualify as a trade. In fact, I have a strict rule for MY trade setup. No ambiguity. Testable. No whining if it fails. No seeking the cause of the trade failure in another condition. SCT is replete with such failures of specificity. SCT is virtually rule-less (unruly, haha!). I will debate any and all comers on my assertion for any facet of SCT.
I think they've fleshed it out a bit more than that, so you can go burn your straw man argument somewhere else. If it were true, it's difficult to explain then how I could possibly identify FTTs in real time in 3 (sometimes 4) markets daily, often as they are printed (or more realistically by the close of the bar / start of next bar) based on this ambiguous system.
Here is an example for you. I was shown a basic structure of how to trade NYSE stocks and from that structure, coupled with my own experience gained by watching the market I formulated my OWN strategy. Using the structure I was shown gave me a base to work from and from there I refined what I did to suit my personality. The same thing applies here. The fundamental structure of how channels operate, how the relationship of volume to price works and through what my own eyes have experienced has led me to formulate my OWN method from the structure laid out in the journal. No one will ever do it exactly like Spyder or Jack but the goal is to come to the same conclusions based on what you see. The method gives you that framework, if you chose to trade bar to bar, to see the market in a way where you can profit constantly. So fine, you have an issue with people not coming up with their own method and being a "follower/sheep" But in reality, that basic structure is just a stepping stone to allow you to see the mkt for what it truly is and from there, you refine your approach to best suit your own personal makeup. I completely agree blindly following something b/c of claims is absolutely ridiculous, that is EXACTLY why you need to do due dilligence. The reason why I am still here talking about this method is because I did the work and found that the correlations btw what was being said and what actually happened in the mkt was very strong. And I also knew that if I found the correlation to be strong early on, that I would only improve with time and practice. Now, you can say what you want about the method or the "claims" but if you would work through the material and actually put in a good effort, I'd bet you'd see the mkt in a whole new way and that you'd be able to profit nicely. Now, you have your own method and I am happy for you because trading consistently well is something few ever accomplish but also keep in mind that there are many ways to make money trading and there are even more ways to lose. Just because you have found one thats works doesnt mean others havent found difference ways to do it better.