In Chapter 1 of his book Trading Price Action Trends, Al Brooks mentions something that I found to be quite strange. (I have uploaded the image of the figure and passage in question). I'm totally confused about the entire second paragraph in the attached image, particularly where he makes the statement that the first leg down begins with A and ends with point B, and that the second leg down is C to D. How is A to B a DOWN leg? Same thing starting with point C... how is that a down leg? And where is point D?... What am I missing here? Thanks for your help, everyone.
Al is getting some stuff mixed up between Elliott wave principles with the AB=CD patterns. If you look up both on Google (images)...you should be able to quickly figure out what he was trying to explain because Google has tons of good examples of both (Elliott waves and AB=CD pattens) to help you see Al's mistake. Yet, he did warn you via saying "the traditional nomenclature is confusing" on that particular page.
Well, what he's saying about the AB=CD and Elliott Wave stuff, I understand. I think he makes sense there about his explanation about the terminologies of the waves and pullbacks. However, I didn't understand how he goes on to explain that chart the way he does... But actually, I think I now after reading that passage a million times, I think I understand what he's saying... but it's such a horrible way of explaining the chart... He's saying that A-B in the Elliott Wave is the same thing as what is ending with point 1 on his chart, and then B-C is the same thing as what is ending with point 2 on his chart, and C-D is the same thing as what is ending with point 3 on his chart. He said it in such a confusing manner that I had no idea what was going on. -____-
Al gets stuff mixed up sometimes or sometimes he doesn't explain it well. Thus, its really a book for those that can figure things out on their own (self serve) about what he's trying to convey to his readers. Yet, some of the stuff that's confusing can be easily cleared up via using Google and this particular info in this thread is a good example about using another source for clarification.
Hmm, to me it seems that it was just a really bad way to explain the chart rather than just a typo. Are there a lot of similar situations throughout his books? I plan on reading through all of them and take notes as I go along. From reading some of your posts, NoDoji, I get the impression that you read his books and got a lot out of it. Is there anything you recommend doing before I get deeper into his books? Should I even begin practicing trading before going through his works? Thanks for your help!
I took the slow approach to reading his books and never finished them. I am making a renewed attempt to get thru them and this time I'm going through them fast. And selectively. I'm probably losing some meaning by not reading from front to back but it's giving me the knowledge and even more so the inspiration I need.