4XCzar, Magna is a serious and conscientious guy who wants that thread to remain pure as an educational service. So he deletes any questioning or OT posts. Other moderators, alas, do not extend the same courtesy to contrary threads elsewhere. They allow them to be polluted without moderation and in unseemly haste consign them to Chit-Chat gehenna. Stay tuned.
Thank you for posting, Jack. But don't forget to read my future post on Error #2. You might learn something about your own assumptions. That's an assumption of its own, of course. That you can learn.
Please post your charts and prints in the journal. Several people there will be very happy to coach you through the six levels of trading. If you wish, use other's performance as a measure of the transference of the approach. New ideas abound in the financial industry. Learning is usually unsuccessful for most aspiring traders. Learning SCT is a process. If you adhere to the conventional orthodoxy, SCT trading is not for you. It is not possible to give up your contemporary beliefs, easily. You will always have them as reminders. At some point for most people, it is impossible to do "work arounds" for conventional orthodoxy beliefs that people have. It is easy to see why. For a great example of this impossibility you can read the collected posts of the many many detractors here in ET. People who are used to trading large capital and with long experience (floor or otherwise) usually take days to get to the point of understanding: 1. seeing real time trading of SCT is real and 2. they have never seen, over their trading experience, such a demo. (Their considered opinions after a few days) Obviously, this is just a forum. However, it is my understanding that journals are conducted rather purposefully. If you have been doing okay, maybe you will get a call from someone who has been around our trading somewhere.
Jack, will you or any of your followers post actual trades or brokerage statements? That would be powerful to back up your claims.
Let's keep it simple. You are characterizing what we do. How you did that is your business. Great you did it and you get to own it. Enjoy. Power and being powerful fits into a heirarchy. At the bottom is money. Above that is power. At the top is information. I am not into power. I (we) have nothing to backup. We aren't making claims. You are the claim oriented person. Keep it you own it; it is yours. You now have tons of information available to you. You have the ability to work. You can conduct a learning process. We support people who work to carry out a learning process. We also expect people who learn SCT to pass it forward and to do as we do with money and time We contribute some to help solve local problems. You are following a typical path of a type of person who can't "get it". As has been said before: "We don't care". We do not care if you do not take advantage of what is in front of you. This thread is devoted to knocking SCT. It is a lot of humor. Here you see that I do not throw life preservers to anyone any more. That is over. I have a lot of work to do. What is before the world today is to solve many pervasive global problems. There are now three pages of rows of exchanges throughoput the world on a list. (it is a list of monthly fees for trading each exchange). 24/7, SCT is done somewhere. We extract capital from pools. We start and contribute to organizations that can solve problems anywhere in the world at this point. One person who observed real time trading with real money for a few days said: "You really do not tell anyone how much money you really make do you?" All of us knew why. This was a 9 digit trader. Thank you for exchanging posts with me. Your suggestions are inappropriate and almost selfserving. It looks like you have elected out on undertaking the SCT learning process for your personal reasons.
There being no convincing refutation of the assertion of Error #1, I proceed to: Error #2: "Up" Volume and "Down" Volume Ain't Always Just as FTTs ain't always (their misinterpretation persists even after much patient coaching by Spydertrader), up volume ain't always up and down volume ain't always down. Who cares? SCT is based in no small measure on volume interpretation. Is this a big deal? No, but it exemplifies the near universal failure to question SCT's fundamental premises. The following discussion may very well be idiosyncratic to NQ, and it certainly is specific to charting and analysis with E-Signal, which might be quirkier than other data providers. SCT traders tend to use the cheapest possible service, though, which E-Signal ain't, so I doubt it. So we're SCTing. We tell our volume chart to color up volume green and down volume red. First problem? The rule the chart uses is close greater than or equal to open is green, close less than open is red. So it doesn't color "unchanged", and biases the volume chart to green. Second problem? It under reports volume. Why? Because it uses a simple algorithm that makes a trade at the bid a sell and a trade at the ask a buy. Alas, the real world isn't that tidy. There are trades above the ask, below the bid, and between the two. There are bids with no ask and ask with no bids. The data stream is leprous. So if you laboriously add up all the volume in T&S you will see that it is more than the volume reported in the bar. Third problem? Why is the second problem a problem? Because the up/down volume decision often hangs on few contracts, even for a high volume bar. Since large trades often are the ones that don't pass the algorithm (they went "upstairs", got executed who knows when, and at an unknown relationship to the current bid/ask "downstairs"), a high volume bar can be miscolored. And a high volume unchanged bar WILL be miscolored. The solution? At least create your own volume chart and color unchanged volume blue, say. You see interesting un-Hershean things when you do that. Ghosts on the parapet. The better solution few people on ET are up to coding. This is absolutely true in one minute. Is it true in five minutes? Due your own do diligence. And it is an object lesson on the influence on higher level charts of events at the tick level. Macro vs. quantum. Tonal vs. nagual.
Jack, you certainly have a way w/words. I was merely asking that you show some validity that your "methods" work. A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed. My request was in no way "self -serving." Your refusal to do so speaks volumes. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
I'm still trying to figure out the old "APA - If1 - If2" method described above from 2003. I've been a miserable failure. I've ran after the Hershey carrot for years but never caught it