Oops, looks like our little conspiracy is now discovered. Funny, I was sure everybody knows it anyway, that's why posted cross nickname stuff so easily. Thanks for the kind words about our old thread, it was my own path to consistency back then.
Looks like the cat's out of the bag now. With that, I'm glad I'll get no more pm's asking, "is Xspurt Yoohoo?" Some here have been lucky enough to know Alan, and I (along with MANY others), can point out that he's the real deal, and someone I'd consider to be a Friend after all he's done to help me over the years. It's just a matter of time until Jack Schwagger finds him, and does a book on Fx imo. Last, he's a busy guy. I don't ask him many questions anymore out of respect for him being busy. I usually find his former posts/threads, read them, and 9 times out of 10 I'll find what I'm looking for. (HINT!) The one thing I don't recommend is people sending him numerous pm's, etc., I'd like to see him stick around a while.
I have read many of your old posts saying that "everything works" and I agree and understand what you meant. In the above quote, are you saying that you actually watch all 3 charts - 1 minute, range, and volume and look for confluence among the 3 when trading? Or were you just saying to look at this as a way of being able to actually see the points you were explaining? And yes, the clowns have yet to provide anything of substance. What a surprise lol.
I discovered that X was Yoohoo a while ago, but didn't want to blow his cover. I've read through the old posts more than once but have to say EMTL's are a bit beyond me at this point so don't worry about me PMing about how to use them LOL. But it was only recently that I saw to my surprise who Intraday FX Player was. As for the trolls I don't think there are that many, probably the same few people under multiple usernames. Not much you can do about that unless you go to a more tightly moderated forum... it's very rare for an ongoing thread to avoid that sort of stuff. If Marty Schwartz or Michael Marcus were posting on ET they'd probably get the same treatment.
Nice charts, I've got to get better at noticing these things. Hope you'll continue to contribute here.
Don't worry guys, I'm not royalty. If ya need to pm me on something go right ahead, but I might refer you back to the thread for the benefit of others. A few years back when I was going through the stage of mentoring some traders from ET that have become life long friends and trading buddies it was quite intense and I didn't want pm's, but now it's no big deal. Just appreciate the fact that if it's a technical question it might take a week to answer and more if my w/e is loaded.
Yes Jack, all three. But it's more than confluence - they take turns in leading. Re. lines, if you mean space lines - that's a different technique. If anyone thinks like this gentleman Mysteron who says, To paraphrase what a wise man once said 'if you draw enough lines on a chart then eventually price will coincide with some of them.' ... Then you don't know what a trend line is sir, let alone how it works and how to prove it. History and performance is everything: how many times did it make contact? How did it react each time in terms of speed, amplitude, set up, volume, respect, timing and direction tell you all you need to know in this time frame about what to expect on the next contact. It's all about quality, not random contact points. It makes me laugh when someone tries to be too clever and only demonstrates how little they know for the years they have been here. Yes Jack, everything works, but it demands tremendous effort to uncover the gems in what others discard as worthless: and that is what an edge is.
That is my problem with your approach here X, you speak about everything here except the gems themselves, then someone like RedTankEra comes along and strictly posts gems with a non bullshit approach, quite the contrast. If you wanna help then help, but you like to speak in riddles, whenever someones tries to obtain a gem from you, it's always a, beyond the scope of this thread, or beyond what I had intended, etc, and instead we get well, the riddles and no gems. Why must it be cryptic, just post the good stuff, and skip the crap.
now that I know xspurt = yoohoo not some bad porn actor I try to catch up with his past posts. The formula for bullish engulfing is obviously wrong, check out his formula for bearish engulfing in the same link note: even the formula above is still slightly wrong, it should read ( C1 >O1) and (O>C1) and (C<O1) thus Bullish Engulfing pattern formula should be ( O1 >C1) and (O < C1) and ( C > O1)
My experience is different... I've found plenty of "gems"... This thread is called "simplicity in TA"...What u percieve as cryptic may just be X not wanting to stray too far from the theme of the thread??.. also.. nothing wrong with throwing a few things in.. too give "food for thought". I've found plenty here ... that with a bit of time and study... I've found to be gems! Just the idea that something, as simple and seemingly inane as the T/line, can be so powerful, so precise ... has been a revelation to me. I would never have got that from a TA book. Cheers Roelof