Old Possum's Book of Practical Charts

Discussion in 'Journals' started by John Merchant, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. Have you got any pointers or ideas trading only the component stocks of Nasdaq100, mainly based on volume and price (anything else)?

    You know I'm not able to decipher Jack's or Spider's holy grail yet at this age, probably never will. :mad:

    Looks like Jack offers a white box, but Spider has his own grey box. :confused:
     
    #241     Mar 22, 2005
  2. Can you remember how many times were yours? :confused:
     
    #242     Mar 22, 2005
  3. You have seen the quality of my NQ trading, and you ask me that? I quit trading individual stocks four years ago after I got screwed one too many times by insider shenanigans. That was about the same time that a paradigm shift occurred and idiots could no longer reliably make money. I think I understand PV relationships in NQ, but their major components? It might be that the same stuff that works for NQ might work, though. For example, you can pretty much take volume anomalies to the bank. Lower volume on a double-botomy, par exemple. (Although that took you to the cleaners today!) Or lower volume on a higher high or lower low (that did work a few times today). Need to pull that stunt when volume is high, though. But those observations are all in Jackean hindsight, like drawing carnals. (Oh, I do miss DB so. He was such a snot about hindsight!) IMO there is a sort of one-way ergodicity at work in the NAZ 100. The ensemble average is useful, but it doesn't help you much predicting individual expected values. I like NQ because even though it is a rigged game the rules don't change much. Not so IMO with individual stocks.

    An afterthought: The NAZ 100 IS unique as an index because it is dominated by a small fraction of its components. There is an edge there. Or an edge of an edge. Or maybe not.
     
    #243     Mar 22, 2005
  4. Why don't we trade only the most active stocks of the day within NASDAQ100? No any complicate indicators/ no lines/ no whatsoever/ no anything?

    Do you think this works, to some degree? :confused:
     
    #244     Mar 22, 2005
  5. BTW, you see rat(e)s slowly drifting up overnight. ("Who? Me?"). Maybe an FOMC shocker tomorrow?
     
    #245     Mar 22, 2005
  6. Exactly yes, if that's the case!
     
    #246     Mar 22, 2005
  7. Odd. Aucune idee. I am the Sgt. Schultz of individual stocks. Trading them is like bending over in the shower in the lockup. But I am with you on simplicity. My one minute chart has nothing on it but volume and VWAP. As I said elsewhere, market movement is all about excuses. It's not like value changes from tick to tick or minute to minute. Volatility is whipped up, as it were, like matter from a vacuum. Find the excuse du jour and you're in. Right now it is oil. Soon it may be rates. Or the price of bananas.
     
    #247     Mar 22, 2005
  8. That means if we cannot fight against them, then better join/ folllow them. :D
     
    #248     Mar 22, 2005
  9. Sorry, I meant (pseudo-)white. Type too fast. :confused:
     
    #249     Mar 22, 2005
  10. The joy of ET is that if you read it closely you will find out what doesn't work. Maybe saves you some time. Lets you look for cheese where there aren't holes.
     
    #250     Mar 22, 2005