yes. Also, we had a decent rejection from the highs, and I figured we were gonna test the globex low a 4290 area, or at least get a 'measured move' of teh previous swing from 21-01 which would have taken us to 4292 area. I was wrong
Bollinger bands or Tightening of highs and fifteen minutes before market close if below low of previous low. Once position gets to breakeven plus a dime protective stop, it never gets moved, all my testing shows trailing stops hurts bottom line for how I trade.
1st trade of the morning. -10 ticks. Mav, you'll probably ask if I reentered,I did. I reshorted at the break of the 7:25 bar,again at the break of the 7:55 bar, and currently in a short at the break of the 8:10 bar.I didn't place them on the chart as they were not losing trades. edit out BE+1 on the last short
I like how you kept the loss to a minimum and then carried on calmly. Must have been at least a good 4:1 on the 7:25 trade, very nice.
I'm back to experimenting with historical replays right now so the feel's not quite the same, but just to throw in a different kind of flavor, here's one on a setup I'm working on. My initial stop-loss is where I consider the reason for the trade to be invalidated and I never move it against me. Because I like potential turning points, the losers thus tend to be fairly quick.
Here's my other loss for today. -23 ticks. Can I ask why you want to see losing trades? I don't trade everyday, but on the days that I trade, I don't mind showing my losers (keeps me humble)
I approve of the spin on things very rare, learning to accept losers is sadly part of the process. No trades yet tomorrow maybe?
I think we learn a great deal from our losers, wouldn't you say? Thanks for sharing some of yours, look forward to others chiming in.
It's my own blend of Morge/Wyckoff with an eye on Adam H. Grimes, who's very grounded when it comes to avoiding being fooled by randomness. I keep an eye on key levels as well (previous day's high/low and few others) to see how we behave when we get there. What I've boiled down my vision to, for now, is that the bulk of technical analysis is a mere tool without much meaning in itself, to help one visualize what he already thinks he's seeing from pattern recognition, which comes from experience alone. I contend that one doesn't use most technical tools the same way after a couple thousand hours of screen time than without trading experience, because the tool's more like reading glasses: you need to know how to read first. You can tell when you look at Morge's trades, that he's a good price action reader on a naked chart first and foremost, which is why some people can't always understand why he chooses one tool over another: he already knows what he's looking for without it, and it just gives him a confidence boost to nail more precise entries and realistic targets. Specifically about median lines, the Andrews median (center) line itself carries the most value, as it literally shows you a hint of where the next swing high/low might be if behavior continues in its most recent state. The parallels are nice to the extent that price often reverses there for a while, especially Modified-Schiff which are really just parallel trend lines with a median. So when I use forks, I use MS when I look for continuation and straight Andrews when I look for a multiple-bottom (or top) reversal, but in both cases that's when I'm already stalking a setup. Back when I just slapped forks on a chart on meaningless pivots expecting the forks to "tell me where price will go", I got nowhere. Obvious in retrospect. Now, as a hint of where to put my entry limit and exit when things start moving in a way I understand "naked", they're actually helpful. Sorry this ran long. There's so little talk about that stuff, I got excited.