yes the market demands that you should have a strategy...but his basic one of H2 is a simple but really good one: it depends on the context whether you should buy it or sell ; that is the brilliance of Al ! perhaps we can investigate this a little more
Both the mayan priests and modern astronomers could predict eclipses perfectly. While the former used a cornucopia of magical thinking rules and exceptions, the later use one equation. Is understanding Al Brooks similar to grasping the laws of gravity from a mayan priest tablet?
i was not aware of this nor of the depth of knowledge of traders which is increasingly on show in this thread! the range of comments this thread has attracted shows that understanding the Great Doctor is not as simple.
The Brooks enthusiasts posting here, and even those of us who attribute to him, at least in part, our ability to earn a living, haven't tried to conceal that at all, or pretend that it's anything like "simple". The range of comments in this thread (just like the range of comments in all the "Al Brooks threads" in this forum) has also included quite a bit of factual misinformation (some corrected and some not), as well as some displays of ill-informed prejudice. It was ever thus.
If you actually benefited from Brooks's materials, then more power to you. But I consider him a variant of JH of ET fame, whose interminable and impenetrable expositions served more to mystify than to explain. My only question is, what motivated you to even venture on his road trip, seeing very early on that he wasn't going to be a pleasant travel buddy. Why him? What made his ridiculous prose so compelling at the outset that you saw fit to see it through. You previously mentioned Bob Volman elsewhere, and I have read his two books. (His first one was much better, in my opinion.) While I don't think all of Volman's content is especially usable, I found some of it to be worthwhile, and actually use from time to time in my own trading. And although his prose is occasionally a bit awkward and stilted, he comes across as someone who actually wants to get something across. Unlike the good doctor, who seems enamored of his own and many musings. It didn't take an inordinate amount of time for me to read Volman's material. So if you found Volman's books sufficiently worthwhile to have commented favorably on them in the past, what does Brooks bring to the table that makes it worth spending years (years!) comprehending? As an aside, I find it interesting that both you and No Doji speak well of Volman and Brooks, and have similar writing styles. Has anyone ever seen both of you in the same room at the same time?
Thanks - I really benefited from them greatly. (Not a huge surprise, surely? All trading forum discussions of Brooks contain their share of members saying exactly the same thing.) Sorry, I don't know who "JH" is, but I've been among those in this thread (and in many others) criticising Brooks' writing style (and the apparent total lack of editing of his books), and I'm certainly the first to agree that it's "interminable and impenetrable". It was the content that helped me so much (after a long struggle with it), not the style. Cleary not your "only" question: your post also contains others. Insistently repeated advice from much older, much more experienced, much more successful traders than myself (people I actually knew in real-life: not anonymous strangers in forums). They were right. I also prefer his first, but (as you can see from all the threads in which I've commented on books, here) I happily recommend either/both, to anyone who asks for book recommendations. Specifically, I recommend that people should read Volman before Brooks, and I always warn people about Brooks' impenetrability. About 10 times as much content as Volman covers - and a different approach. I'm not the same person as "NoDoji" and I know absolutely nothing about her beyond having seen and liked some of her posts here. The idea that we have similar writing styles is ludicrous (and probably also not too polite to ND, considering that English isn't even my first language).
Ridiculous! You believe that what you can't do, nobody can! How are you able to discern what has "scientific merit"?
if you are talking about what appears to be a sell you took (last green bar in your chart..in circle) then it appears to me you did not wait for enough info before taking a position. However, it still may have turned out ok. Thus goes the markets. However, i would have waited for more info. Context..tight range top left then a bear BO in form of a tight channel then a broad range at bottom that is broad enough to trade both directions. Then strong bull BO followed by a flag in form of a triangle. Lows in triangle are holding above the bull BO point so odds slightly favor a BO north from the triangle. However, the triangle is at a resistance zone (red line) so I would at this point do nothing. I would wait to see which way price will BO from this triangle. If it breaks above the resistance zone and a subsequent PB holds above resistance then I would look at going long on an H1 or H2. If it breaks south out of the triangle, or any BO north fails, then I would look at shorting any L1 or L2 and look for price to break south thru the ema and reach close to the top of the broad range at the bottom. Remember the cycle. Range..BO channel...range followed by another BO. You can’t just go long or short on h1..h2’s or L1..L2’s or 3’s..etc. Context must be considered. Stage of market cycle...etc. In fact, these Ranges..BO’s are all in a larger sideways range on this time frame plus in a channel on a larger time frame.
a absolutely brilliant...and you have a big heart to have taken so much pain, to have explained it all in 'Al Brooks' style, which is basically a lot of common sense reasoning. incidentally the BO was up and it closed the week on its highs