Actually it is the market that provides all the answers. I don't know how much clearer my answer would be compared to what the market has already shown today.
If you re-read my prior post Tums, you will see that I do believe I have found a sufficient level of illumination, for me, at this point in time, to feel comfortable using what I have described, as a method to distinguish between a pace increase and peak volume. Does this mean that I've found THE answer to the peak volume conundrum [conundrum being of course a variable feast] - unequivocally, no. You may believe that you do have THE answer - too cool. How did you find THE answer? If my working solution is not correct I will find out soon enough because Ms. Market will tell me. I can live with that and if that happens to me, I will say so on the thread. lj
Maybe you haven't zeroed-in on the comment I refer to? or maybe you are oblivious to specific instructions? or maybe you have selective reading? or maybe you do not like to be "told"?
Assume the market did not show me the answer please. The resolution level at which I'm attempting to annotate does not require carry over or information from the prior day. I'm trying to do it within the context the present day provides. I am interested in what you see and a walk through of what you see, the "answers the market provided", similar to the outstanding ones you have done in the past would be appreciated.
I stopped counting after I completed 100 rep's of printed out crayola drills. I definitely am more lost than I was at the beginning. In the past few months there have been quite a few assertions that never arose in the whole year of the futures journal. For example: distingquishing a RTL XO that started as change before the XO or not. Allowing for context and fractal, there could be an infinite number of subtle combinations of price and volume. My job is to sort out which combinations are important. I've tried to do that by looking for when patterns repeat themselves, but don't play out the same way, and then look for the clues that distingquish the two sceanios. This has not been fruitful. As per the reccommendation of another member, I have gone back and reviewd the first couple months of the futures journal. This has done nothing to help sort out the questions I have posted over the past few months. Emmerson said,' a foolish consistancy is the hobgobblin of little minds'. I don't think I'm stuck in any kind of 'foolish consistancy'. I have been as hermeneutically generous as I know how to be, yet struggle to begin to even see a smidgen of anything anew. I would like to point out, that (from the record in the journals) the individuals that "get it", seem to get it early on. Mr. Black and Ehorn were taking trades relatively early. I examined their charts, and they were often quite off the track of Spydertrader's. Callmate, by her own admonition, doesn't have gaussians nailed down yet. That hasn't stopped her from stellar performance. Makosgu, upon Bundlemaker's freakout, suggested to use what you know (Makosgu stated he didn't get or use harmonics). I stll believe that a key issue is HOW to see the fractals. And if you can't see the fractals, all sense of context is flushed down the toliet. It is NOT as easy as "tapes make traverses". Or it is, and I'm not hearing the definitions correctly. Often I see a tape go so long that it not only makes for a traverse width, it becomes a traverse itself. It's easy to see this on EOD chart, but as it's forming, one has no idea. The tape just keeps goin and a goin. THen one looks for the retrace (as the second segment of the traverse) and instead gets a pt3 traverse IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION (a non-dom traverse). To this set of eyes, the fractal just took a quantum jump (quantum as in the theory, not in some big leap). I apologize to all of you, but especially Spydertrader for the length of this post. I suggest that a solution does exist to a number of people who are struggling here, but JUST annotating charts over and over, may not be the most efficacious approach. If the desire is the "pay it forward", a reasonable fellow would thing that the "payor" would want to make it as painless as possible for himself and the "payee".
Congrats to those who have gotten it early. For myself, I am still trying to nail it down after over a year of intensive study. Some of us are simply more dense than others I suppose
08-01-08 08:29 AM ________________________________________ Quote from ljyoung: If you re-read my prior post Tums, you will see that I do believe I have found a sufficient level of illumination, for me, at this point in time, to feel comfortable using what I have described, as a method to distinguish between a pace increase and peak volume. Does this mean that I've found THE answer to the peak volume conundrum [conundrum being of course a variable feast] - unequivocally, no. You may believe that you do have THE answer - too cool. How did you find THE answer? If my working solution is not correct I will find out soon enough because Ms. Market will tell me. I can live with that and if that happens to me, I will say so on the thread. lj ________________________________________ Maybe you haven't zeroed-in on the comment I refer to? or maybe you are oblivious to specific instructions? or maybe you have selective reading? or maybe you do not like to be "told"? ________________________________________ Quote from ljyoung: Excerpt from a Spyder-LittleMac PeV chat: 07-31-08 09:58 PM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spyder's Comment: You have the correct bars, but the incorrect conclusion. Perhaps, a thoroughly annotated, correctly colored chart might assist your learning. lj ________________________________________ Check it out Tums: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w&feature=related I have posted several annotated charts which perhaps don't meet your criteria of 'thorough'. I'm working on it Tums. I'm working on it. lj
I do not believe this to be the case at all. Surely there are easier ways to transfer the information. IIRC, there is a level of 'weeding out' present that the transferrers wish to maintain. One will not learn the method without a quantum (not theory, large ) leap of faith. Ask a question and ye shall receive a nudge in the right direction at best. As this is the preferred method of 'teaching', to proceed we are forced to put in some extra study time or, as Spyder says, seek the bursar for a refund My only suggestion would be to post areas that are causing you difficulty and we (the uninformed) will try to come up with an answer. The informed will hopefully keep us on track. As for those that seem to 'get it', I would venture to say you are giving them too much credit. Making money is a far cry from truly understanding these methods. You can tell by most blotters that very few are doing SCT on even the most coarse of levels. As Spyder said, it is a long process to get there. Making money by grabbing the low hanging fruit while learning is a great thing to do---helps w/ the patience factor of not 'getting' it yet HTH