I don't day trade, but my observations have been that the guys who do really well are tape readers who see the bids and asks before they become the price. From this before the price data they make decisions about what price will do. Rather than studying the price itself Sure they may chart price to get an idea of where its been but the decisions are made from the DOM. It's incredibly difficult and takes xceptional brainpower and skills. But it can be done Peace
Do you realize that the game of watching the DOM with the human eye ended years ago. I know plenty of traders who did well with it back in 2000. But that game ended back when people used those 9lb cell phones you were hawking were popular. You do realize that the HFT's have perhaps a "slight" edge over a person just sitting there watching the bid size change about every millisecond. When I say slight I kind of mean a gigantic edge....
Yeah. I have not been in the day trading game for a long time. I don't doubt what u say -- but what about the tape and dom reading software-- like jigsaw that assists human dom readers? Surely that makes more sense than charts for day traders. I hope u are doing well. I am in the keys with a sick baby-- great day, but tonight has been very difficult. The trip may be cut short if she doesn't get better.... surf
Jesus...what's your excuse for being on here at 1:45 a.m. ? I just got back from a late movie. Tape and Dom reading software might work if the actual trading decisions were made by a computer. But a human pulling the trigger? No way man. No way the human eye can beat a computer at that game anymore. And I am an old school trader so you know I want to take the side of the human when possible....but not in this case. Your post implied you thought that guys staring at a DOM were making money as daytraders. I find that hard to believe. As far as your chart comment? Dude. You want to go that route again? Surely you will say something slightly dumb.....and get the boot from here. Let it go already dude.
I am posting on here at 1:45 am. (and not because I am coming home from a night of drinking). That should tell you how well I am doing. Getting old sucks man. Anyways.....sorry about your kid. Don't mess around with the health stuff. In all seriousness play it safe. In January 2014 I almost had my ticket punched. Spent 14 days hospitalized in Jan. Then had emergency surgery in March. Spent another 8 days back there. All because I was a fucking stubborn idiot. Could have avoided the whole situation if I just went to the doc. I'll get to one of your meetings down here. Can tell you over a beer or 10.
.....the law is cause and effect.....not effect and effect. The only reason that prevents one from understanding and seeing is that part highlighted in "red"....."me" here is your "mind".....so you clearly have an obstruction.
You're suggesting that properly learning to quantify, as Brooks does, every detail on a 5-minute chart leads to consistent and scalable profitability. Skeptics of Brooks see this as Brooks' marketing hook more than anything else, because they have yet to see any evidence of profitable and scalable day trader's results using this method. Brooks has likened his books to instructions on playing the violin, leaving success up to the individual's mastery of his teachings, but the evidence does not agree with this promise. Adam Grimes (www.adamhgrimes) has done statistical analysis of moving averages and concluded that "price action following price engagement the moving average is random and unpredictable." One of Grimes' statistical scenarios involving trading pullbacks in trends (which he does see as having some statistical positive expectancy) was even found to lose money and others were near breakeven with small profits, I'm not sure if commissions and fees were included. Brooks' method can't be reduced to quantifying details and it's not fair to conclude that those who fail to quantify like Brooks are just failures. There is a lot of gut-feeling involved, based on what the market "usually does" and guesswork based on where he thinks the daily, weekly or monthly candle should close or test at, for example. Is it ethical to market a method of quantifying chart details and trying to reduce your teachings to something close to a science, while not addressing the highly discretionary role of intuition and guesswork?
What the market "usually does" is also known as statistical analyses. The student can conduct such analyses based on precise quantification of details such as swing highs/lows, price turn triggers, trend line price levels, range extremes, indicator levels, multiple time frame relationships, breaks of price bars' OHLC levels, bar size, candlesticks and related patterns, etc. These details are analyzed in relation to overall context and positive expectancy setups are identified. There are a few rare individuals who can internalize all this after a certain period of screen time and trade profitably without having to conduct formal studies. As a beginner, I thought I was one of those people, but the market taught me otherwise. What I discovered is my intuition and feelings have negative expectancy. I even took the time one week to note every trade that my intuition/gut feeling told me to and the outcome was so awful that simply taking the other side of my gut feeling would've resulted in a nearly 80% win rate. This helped me move closer to trading every valid setup no matter how improbable the trade "felt". As a beginner I had many conversations with experienced profitable traders. Only one of them told me his trading was based on "mojo". (That was Red_Ink.) All the others had studied and quantified and often automated part or all of their methods. EricP, who posted his nearly million dollar day here on ET was running automated systems. There was no guesswork involved. The guesswork and gut feeling may have been part of the "trade idea" process very early on, but it was the scientific method and quantification that identified what the market "usually does". To me, it would be impossible (and therefore unethical) to market a method that did not reduce trading to something as objective and probability-based as possible. I'd venture that most failed traders were brought down by trading (or skipping trades) based on gut feeling, guesswork, and then revenge trading off the resulting frustration. Al Brooks' doesn't have "a method". He reveals numerous trade ideas and related setups, shares some effective ways of entering and managing the trades, and warns the novice of common traps (usually based on feelings like "this trend just has to be reversing now"). I have the greatest respect for those who can internally process all that scientific stuff and trade effectively from it without setting up any sort of plan. They are extremely rare from my experience.