I'm going to say this again for you FX guys out there: Mexican Peso over the Dollar! Still going and going and going....
Broken record time: F - relatively lousy this week on a "miss" regarding monthly sales. Set up a nice situation where the out-performer began to under-perform. Look at today's action. While the indicies gaped, F actually made the move during the market session as it had to "catch-up." Very nice move today.
I posted this on another thread and thought it would be useful here as well. It pertains to the idea of re-using old A levels. OK, as far as levels getting revisited, here is my take on that. ACD levels are hidden from the rest of the community until they print. I say hidden because they are not on anyone else's charts. Once an A level becomes realized, meaning the market trades there and fails, that level is no longer hidden. It becomes visible to the whole world, the cloak comes off if you will. Once that level is visible to everyone, others can now trade off of it. It becomes a swing high or low so to speak. In my humble opinion, that level loses a lot of it's luster once it becomes shown to all. What I mean by this is, it will start attracting stops and get messy. I don't like that. So as Shan said, i don't like to re-use old levels. Especially if they worked!!!! I would be more inclined to re-use the level if they didn't work because that would mean others are not aware of it yet! Hope that makes sense. The aspect of time is also very important in ACD. The longer you go in a cycle, the usefulness of any A level wears off. I tend to ignore intra-day A levels late in the day, weekly levels late in the week and monthly levels late in the month. The whole idea behind ACD is seeing things other people are not seeing. It's like being able to wear night goggles at night. Everyone else sees darkness, you see light. Being able to recognize things that are NOT obvious is what trading is all about. Things that are not obvious are cheap, things that are obvious are expensive. That should make intuitive sense to you. Think of placing a bet. Any bet that had close to a 100% chance of winning is only going to pay out a very little amount. A long shot bet that no one thinks will win will pay out huge. Trading works the same way. Certainly there is no right or wrong way to use ACD. But I've put about 10k hours into this over the last 5 years and these are the things I have noticed. They are just observations. I would not re-use old levels. In fact, if there is an A level around another key level, I disregard it. That also sounds counter-intuitive. For example, say the weekly A down in CL is also the 100 day moving avg. That level is now useless to me. Why? Because everyone is already watching that level. My level is now visible to everyone and will create noise as a result. Noise is hard to trade and even harder to read the price action.
terranovajoe Joe Terranova it's 2:30 if you are short from this morning you officially have a problem, time is not on your side Tweet from Joe.
Yeah, re-tweeted that one from Joe myself. Good one there. Also, we should direct newbies on this thread to your last post. Nice summary of the 700+ pages in a few short paragraphs. Thanks Mav!
OK seriously CMI. This thing is a rocket ship. WTH. Looks like a roman candle. I must not have gotten the memo. LOL.
Maverick, that is a thought-provoking post. As far as price levels go it is the exact opposite of most everything I've read from market "guru" sites and educational threads on forums. Hmmmm... food for thought
Wow, this guy on CNBC actually said we "might" get a dip back to 1330 on the S&P. Really? We might pull back 9 handles? LOL. Jeez, I better get ready for that possible 1% correction.
These new monthly number lines are on fire. Only 3 days into the month and they are smoking up my spreadsheet.
The boys on CNBC, god love em, are not technicians. They some strange stuff. If it weren't for my very early days when I thought Maria was kinda cute, the occasional postings on here, and my parents calling me asking me translate, then I would not know CNBC existed.