Well, of course there is more than one way to make money trading. It just goes to show that the assumptions we bring to trading strategy development drive the final outcome. For me, I needed something that enabled me to identify the one price at which buying or selling is probabilistically-optimal and built toward that goal without even thinking there could be another way to approach it. When that one price is hit, no other confirmations are required. There are so many similarities between what I do and ACD, it's just surprising to me that Fisher didn't take that extra step to merge bias and signal.
I think that's just it, there are some minor contradictions. The one that I pointed out where he uses the A and C levels as if they were actual entries when he talks about trade examples was the one that stuck out to me. I was working under the assumption that the price he identified as point A was the price at which he assumed a trend in that direction had started, so of course you would buy or sell at that price. If you'd worked out the probability of point A being that price and determined it was sufficiently-probable, you'd be crazy not to buy right there. I think as far as trading being the hardest profession, it's definitely got one of the steepest learning curves, if not the steepest. Even medical doctors get started with relatively simple cases or working with cadavers, but a trader is trading against the world's best from the get-go. Once you complete that learning curve, though, it does get a lot easier and then the main challenge is not violating your discipline and doing something that goes against your learning. There are times when I get tempted to trade just 1 ES contract to keep from falling asleep, but I don't do it because I don't want to trade randomly.
I tend to want to agree with you when it comes to the signal and entry. It did always appear to me that Fisher was espousing the A and C levels and entry areas. What he was leaving out of the equation. Was conditions in which to enter, product selection etc... What types of things are you looking for if you dont mind. Since you said you are looking for things similar to Fisher I am curious.
I look for price to move a certain amount in a given amount of time. If it does, I'm in using stop limit orders. The amount is always different, based on volatility. So, just like Fisher, I watch price, time and volatility. I don't worry about "conditions" or anything like that. I found that whenever I would try to outguess the objective facts about price and time, my performance suffered because I would talk myself out of taking trades that ended up winners. I found that I had horrible "instincts" as a trader, so I had to do everything possible to remove me from the equation. The alternative was to give up trading and I didn't want to do that. I agree with Fisher that time is too often overlooked, but is supremely important. I operate under the assumption that when people want to get into or out of the market, they don't wait, they take action. Once a critical mass of people take action within the requisite amount of time, I take action. By design, I'm late to the party. On the plus side, I rarely show up unless there's an actual party.
havent read the whole tread. But if essentials for a system are lacking what are you left with ? Take a simple 2 moving average lines they have clear signals when they cross. There is no thinking in the method. when they cross you reverse your position. Sometimes you take one a loss and some times you take a profit. Generally the profits out weigh the losses. And you have your self a system that works. Its what you do with the system that makes all the difference. What is your risk to reward ratio, If the worst case scenario presents itself will you be left with the shirt off your back? Now just take a chart in any time frame and draw a line right through it, buy when or sell when it is hit, what results do you get. Try doing the opposite of the "ACD" system. What risk to reward ratios do you need to make it profitable ? Is it possible to do the opposite and be profitable using good money management vs doing what a system says using no money management. or close your eyes and buy at a random point and use good money management. Yes, some entries allow for better risk to reward ratios. But if a thread goes on since before the day I became a member and some people have been learning it not putting down a dime as of yet is it worth it to extend the learning curve by such a long period? Assuming that the difficulty in being profitable is in finding entry's and exits is being closed minded. Thinking that you will analyze strategies 10 x more then 90% of the people and thus putting you in the top 10% will work is also being closed minded. Assuming that 90% of the people arent analyzing and learning like you may be here is closed minded. 90% of people that start to trade do exactly what you may be doing. I know you got more stamina ? you got more drive? you will learn or die learning. you will be safe, you will follow your rules. you wont be emotional ect. sounds like you ? probably , cause you are the 90 % . It is easy to stay in the top 90% for 10, 20 years. Its a trap. the minds inner theory says that the more often i spend on this the more I will know then the other 90%. The fact that you believe that all it takes to be successful is to simply beat 90% of the people is to easy believe it or not. it is like being told to get 90% on a single test and you will be rich for life. You may think that that is hard for many but it is not. when the minds whats to get 90% it will get 95%+. Its not hard to out preform when there is money on the line. beating 90% of people is just too easy. All it takes is dedication and time, woopy. Also it should be noted 99.9% of info out there is useless when not used correctly. to assume that a single bit of information (or that you will find the .10 % that may be relevant and recognize it is imposible. start from scratch, forget about entries. there's a chart that moves around. maybe people trade it causing the movements (price and demand). They use similar systems and that reinforces price movement. action at resistance does not occur because there is an imaginary force there. it is because the number of people that are watching that same resistance line are more then the number of people that are watching something else like a moving average. As time passes and we edge near a moving average in the resistance area it will then switch to more people watching the moving average ( or any other indicator) Even if you have all the indicators up, one cant tell which one will be followed more. Using a complex system that others are less likely to use will put one at a disadvantage more then anything. wouldn't you want to sell when every one else is selling ? Again, I know nothing really about this "ACD" method. but if its not working for you and you are doing everything right then there is something wrong, some missing information. which ever it is by the point you come to that realization... YES it would be easier to teach a grade 9er because you have lost track and have lost the open mindedness to even question if you are learning the right topic let alone the right method. The grade 9er or any one that has not spent years trying to learn and adjust will be more likely to admit failure after failure after failure and then ask himself, there's something else to all this and its probably not even about finding entries. my 2 cents. sorry it came up on this particular thread but it should be applied to all threads besides ones talking about what one did on the weekend.
Here is a snapshot of the overnight moves in the Euro and Aussie. AUD/USD failed at the A up almost to the tick an the Euro failed at the top of the daily pivot 6 times!
Financials continue to outperform on this bounce. Monthly A up in XLF is 13.32. Watching that very carefully.
The A up for the Aussie on the London session is right at this 1.0275 level. For the Euro it's at 1.3490. We have some wicks up here. Failed on the first attempt.
Saw something over the weekend regarding last week's gains in the XLF. I wasn't paying close attention to XLF given the half Nov, half Dec week last week, but some of the individual stocks there had double digit teen gains.
They were very over sold. So the bounce is expected. However if they confirm, these things could really run into year end.