Attached is my answer to Avi 8 question of what must come next. Due to extremely mediocre to poor results of my trading on a part time basis I decided to take a couple of months off of trading and just monitor. THe last couple of weeks I am at a point of knowing my charts are annotated properly and really not caring about seeing how other people anotate there charts. My point is I feel quite confident that I know what I see and I have a strong opinion about what I expect to see. My last paragraph I beleive is the answer to the question of " Spyder how do I know that ???????? is correct type question" I really appreciate everyone sharing there charts and especially Mr. Black charts and trades. Mr Black has a strong "scalper mentality" that can make someone very wealthy. So can the resolution type trades.
Read the above quote of yours again, and again - because this isn't your job at all. You've omitted, or more accurately translated, a significant portion of the intent behind many of my posts. For example, "It is NOT as easy as 'tapes make traverses,'" does not include, "Just as letters build words and words build sentences, so too do tapes build traverses and traverses build channels." Note my choice of analogy. While 26 letters exist in the englaish alphabet, one could say it is impossible to learn to read due to the infinite number of combinations of letters which exist. Yet somehow, the human race has learned to communicate in both oral and written form by using letters, words and sentences. How is such a thing possible? While all letters are indeed different from one another, they do have commonality when combined in certain ways. Just as Price and Volume combine in certain ways to repeat, over and over again, the same sequences from Point One to Point Two to Point Three. Just as sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a period, so too must a traverse (and a channel) begin and end. Without a beginning and an ending, neither a sentence, nor a traverse can exist. This is not new information. This is simply common sense. A thing (whatever the definition) cannot exist until it begins, and all things have an end. While I do have empathy for anyone experiencing frustration, I cannot 'see' through your eyes, and I cannot pinpoint what you have missed or translated that my posts did not infer nor imply. Clearly, a number of people can 'see' that which the market provides. However, you have chosen to point out what others could not see (at a conscious level), but you do not know what they did see - consciously or subconsciously. Finally, be clear about this last part. I have no agenda for providing the information in a fashion which I feel represents an easy mode or a difficult one. I have simply provided information. Obviously for some, the information made sense, and transference resulted. Now, since a number of people viewed the same information from the same source as you (or anyone else currently struggling), and these nsame people 'get it' while you (and others struggling) do not, where must the source of the obstacle originate? The Information? The Person Providing the information? or The person reading the information? If you need proof, simply review the recent discussions surrounding Peak Volume. I presented a simple and straightforward definition. Note how many posts attempted to overcomplicate the process. Note how many posts failed to simply look at a chart and differentiate. Note how I was asked if a certain bar really was Peak Volume - even though I had clearly indicated it was not several moments before the question. Note how many people, so many times I have lost count, simply ignore, misinterpret or dismiss assistance provided by a whole range of individuals contributing to this thread. Obviously, you cannot 'see' that which others find crystal clear. What you also fail to see is this: The reason for your difficulty rests squarely on your own shoulders. Nobody likes to read these words, and nobody whats to admit the problem resides between their own two ears, but let's face it, it is what it is, and really, blaming me, the material, or anything else, isn't going to get you to where you need to be. So, anyone reading these words should start from this point forward by shifting their mindset. First, understand the problem. Second, locate a solution. Observe the problem from several different vantage points. Attempt to solve part of the problem, then solve the rest. Make sure all data needed to resolve the issues resides within your brain. Believe me, I do have empathy for you (and others like you) and your struggles. However, should I choose to stop posting tomorrow, everyone has all the answers they ever need. Most simply look for the answers in the wrong places. - Spydertrader
I have no criteria. When I want to know if my chart is on the right track, I compare it to Spyder's. Maybe you have compared yours, but considered the "minor" differences do not make a major difference?
Gucci is embarking on a discovery expedition of his own. Maybe you can give it a try too? After all, repeating a "mistake" will not get you the correct answer, it will only reinforce the mistake.
Can one assume then that when you said: "My goal includes making this process as clear and concise as possible. If at any time, someone feels a post requires additional clarification, please bring those comments to my immediate attention." at the beginning of the futures journal that this is no longer the case. Very little is clear to me here. I would prefer to continue asking questions to get it clear. If my pursuit of clarity is getting in the way of what you are trying to do here, please let me know and I will stop. The implicaton here is that all people learn, understand, progress, and perceive the same way. This is patently false. A child with kinesthetic tendancies CAN NOT learn when information is presented in a visual way. This point can not be made strongly enough. My example here is not meant to an anlolgy of what is happening here. It's just one example. Many individuals, of all ages, suffer incredibly because others don't undertand that each human's neural pathways are different. These differences amount to virtually different languages. So, to say that because some people understood you, that the fault with undertanding lies with the indivual flies in the face of everything that modern behavioural psychology and biochemistry (among other subjects) has taught us. Where is this located? Please point it out. I honestly don't know to what you refer here. I believe you mentioned something about accelarating pace. But then said it's not the same as just a pace change. But then never distingquished between the two. And in the equities journal it was 2X FRV. And earlier this year, I believe Little Mac was posting on equities and some equities exampels of peak volume were posted, sort of suggesting it had something to do with where price closed. (please note I have invested such huge amounts of time that these facts I had right in my head, didn't have to go searching) If you can point to a single post, with a single UNAMBIGUOUS definition of PEAK volume, then I have to admit I'm stupid, lazy, or defective; in which case I will immediately stop posting and wasting this communities precious time. On the other hand, if such a thing as an UNAMBIGUOUS definition is simply not possible, please be comfortable with relating that. Maybe the market can not be defined with equations. Maybe it's more a feel sort of thing. If so, us struggling need to hear that. I am fully aware and embracing the fact that my results are my responsiblity. This does not, however, have anything to do with my difficulties. IF I was indeed not accepting the responsiblity, that would be different. But I do. I apologize for a couple posts that some most likely will construe as attacking or subversive. While they are not meant to be, I am not sorry I posted. There are clearly some just too unwilling to do the necessary work. THere are also some, who fall into a different group. These people are not lazy, do take responsility, try to see things from different perspectives, and ask lots of questions.