The sequence, as I understand it, is learn to trade the point threes, exit on rtl cross until you get proficient at identifying ftts at which point you exit at ftt and, when your good enough, reverse on ftt. Obvioulsy many will never get to this point. So far I cannot indentify ftts well enough to reverse. It does not worry me.
Here's another one: "what do I need for this to be an FTT (change) and what do I need for this to be a flaw (continuation)?" Let's say I answer that question based on the most current MADA cycle, meaning, right now. My answer is hold and is based on the close of a 5min ES bar and is coarse in nature (price and volume and channels only). The next MADA cycle, say 30 seconds later, is change. We're in mid channel, and no reason has demonstrated the need to go to medium, and the signal is change again. At the one minute mark, still coarse tools, and change again. Obviously, this is the wrong way to be doing it. Unfortunately, there really, in 8 months, including Tucson, has NEVER been an eplanation of a way out of this. More importantly, I personally, have never seen an example of someone doing it the right way. Not once. Nada, no where. Yet I have kept the faith, still trust all involved, want to conquer this god damned beast on my shoulders, and move on with my life. I'd even like to take Spyder to Vegas and just give him ten or twently large to gamble away while I'm smiling, knowing I can recover it all on the next trading day.
Ivo, With all due respect, you've regurgitated, you haven't thought it out. Again, I ask, what does it mean whether you have a dip, or a stall, or a hitch or an HVS? Not is it one? but does it matter which one? Your second sentence is circular. Knowing something is X can not, by common logic, help you to determine that it's X. That is essentially what you have stated. So far, nothing has shown us in the syllabus how to know something is a flaw anytime before the bar after one. Spyder has just stated this will come up in the coming days.
I don't know how much more plain I can be than to state I MUST have interpretted incorrectly. That is a given. If I thought otherwise, would it make sense for me to even be typing right now? Communication is the LEAST effective means to teach anything, or for that matter to convey anything. Communication, by it's very nature is subjective. Words are like colors. You can NEVER know my experience of what RED is. The reverse is also true. This is why teaching in only one way produces some cases of success, and other cases of abject misery. At this point, I am uncertain of what I know and don't know. In reality, if I can place one qualifier on the anwer, then I'd say, even end of bar, I do not know change from NOC. The qualifier is simply that it really feels like I'm guessing. Furthermore, intrabar is just a nightmare. Change/NOC/change/NOC over and over and over .....well, you get the picture.
Hmm - I have a very unpleasant taste in my mouth - I will try and explain. Please overlook my shortcomings as related to my articulation and deductive reasoning skills. No doubt my exploits elsewhere have been viewed, and for that I will apologize once again. I have sent a PM to vikana, the moderator of that forum, to take some action. Without remembering word for word, I tried to impress upon him how such behavior surely cannot be tolerated. I told him "if so, then it will spread like wildfire around this board". Lacking a better way to tag it, I think I have opened Pandora's box: I know the frustrations I was feeling at the time - that guy finally hit all my buttons. Instead of responding as would a disciplined trader in the mkt, I allowed my emotions to run rampant and totally lost control. (As a footnote, those exchanges were finally taken private, and it didn't take half an hour to understand what a totally pathetic and shallow individual he actually is. As a friend in our group so aptly pointed out to me, his sole purpose for being here is to disrupt - and I allowed him to do just that ) I just have a very uneasy feeling that this has possibly triggered peoples' relief valves over here as well. Maybe it's all totally unrelated and purely coincidental- I just hope everyone will take a few steps back and reconsider what might be transpiring. Consider it as a contagion, if ya will. I feel I am quite capable of completely understanding the frustrations of Bob, David and others. I know the countless hours I have devoted to the methods, and I'm sure that pales in comparison to the even more discplined students. Bottom line: this stuff is an extremely tough nut to crack. But bearbelly's advice is excellent in my estimation: be content w/ a couple Pt 3 trades per day, while we continue to monitor each and every bar to slowly enhance our understanding. I don't think we can fit our journey into a neat 1 yr. box. But as bb also suggested, there is definitely money to be made along the way. This is not to imply that bundle's request for some realtime play by play action is by any means unwarranted. And I think Spy and Jack can also appreciate that fact. But we all can also consider the tremendous undertaking that Spyder has shouldered, and perhaps bide our time a bit while things continue to unfold. If this all seems to be coming from right field, then just chalk it up to the old man w/ the ruffled feathers. If any of it has any bearing, then I surely regret my previous behavior. Either way - enjoy your holiday, gang. I intend to
Continued Flaws and Internal Formations We know that most flaws form when volume significantly differs from the previous bar. I have often discussed how this significant difference in Volume at end of bar has a 'tipping point' around the 40% to 60% level when compared to the previous bar. In other words, if the current bar Volume has somewhere around 90% (or so) of the previous bar then we think, "This bar has all the markings of an FTT." If, on the other hand, we see only 10% of the Volume of the previous bar, we think, "This bar has all the markings of a flaw." The 40% to 60% of the previous Volume bar marks the point at which we distinguish between the two. Since the beginning of this Journal, we have all had a tool, that on many bars, allows us to know, within the bar itself, that we cannot possibly end up with an FTT on this current bar. The tool to which I refer is PRV. Note the flaws on the examples I have shown. Note The Volume Levels. Is it possible that at some point within the bar itself, one should know exactly what we see because Volume cannot make it to a level where it signals an FTT? or better yet, Volume cannot make it to continuation? Of course it is. Look at those Volume bars. Can you not see how one can most definitely know before the close of the bar? If I say, we must see a certain Volume level by end of bar, what must occur within the bar for the result at the end of the bar to occur? So yes, I did not specifically spell out in step by step fashion, complete with road map and atlas, exactly how one can arrive at knowing intra-bar. But I did most definitely, on more than one occasion, spell out exactly what was needed at end of bar. I apologize for assuming everyone could make the connection between the two. - Spydertrader