Is it not fair to say that everything you say in the above quote applies to the hindsight manner in which you annotated and posted this chart with your method shown? Given the manner in which you argue only real time calls or trading results can offer credibility, have you yourself not raised our expectations that you would do as you demand of others? In fairness? Would your case not be infinitely stronger if you were to do what you are critical of others for not doing Make "real-time" calls here in your thread showing that you are indeed using this method to do so? The scribble method can at least post charts in advance identifying the pricelevels where trades are likely to be taken. Your method depends on the mathematical calculations of as yet unknown values. For you to demonstrate it is viable, much less superior, should you not hold yourself to the same standard as you wish to hold the practioners of other methods. For the record, I really don't care if you trade using it or not. But I do care if you are going to sell or tout it to unsuspecting newb's as "The Method to the Exclusion of All Others" if you are not going to show you yourself capable of using it. Of course, none of this should need to be said if you were instead showing your method as one possible method among many. Then people would, or at least should understand that it is up to them to investigate, understand, and then test the method under real time market conditions to see if it 1) works and 2) whether it works for them.
I Agree. I journalled in private for quite a while and I would have to say the biggest strides in progress have been made after starting a public journal. You might remember last week @dbphoenix, you helped me with some aspects of my pre market analysis. By working through that on a public forum I was then able to go away and have since spent this last week backtesting, forward testing my approach to pre market analysis. Based on that work I've been able to revise my trade plan which I am forward testing at present with pretty decent initial results..... All within the space of a week and all from being able to post publicly. More progress in a week than the last 2 months of working and journalling privately. / start rant @lajax has been (imo) put 'through the wringer' this past week with all of his posts scrutinised unfairly. This person is doing the work that so few do, and he is doing it publicly. He should be congratulated.... / end rant
And yet BS sees fit to ridicule him for doing the work that only a handful of those who frequent this site do and have done. It is to lajax' credit that he can ignore all of that.
There is ample evidence of "real-time" calls, before the fact trading plans for many particular days, and trading results, p/l's ect within the ET archives that can and have been easily found by every one sincerely interested enough in the scribble approach to give it a fair shake. The reason no scribbler is likely to meet your continued demands for such calls and p/l's is that in the past, when this very information was provided, the result was not "Ok, thank you very much." Instead, those making the demands typically continued or even intensified their demands. The truth is that for someone who seeks evidence outside of what ought to be expected from trading forum participants, no level of documentation will be sufficient. Today critics choose to call price action trading scribbles, and back in the original SLA thread the critics derisively called it "kindergarten lines." What's old is new, both with respect to the critics and the approach itself. If the current participants of ET wish for "proof" they will need to search the archives. It is not fair to expect us to post a fresh batch of calls and p/l's for every new bunch who decides that they are entitled to such information. Here is the original SLA thread: If You Can Draw A Straight Line . . . It is a gem. If you were to first read DbPhoenix's FREE SLA/AMT pdf, and then work your way through that thread, you would likely have the basis for understanding at least what questions to ask. And no matter what method you use to trade, if you do in fact trade, learning what is in that thread can only help you. Here we see an interactive brokers chart of a scribble student showing that he was able to sell short near the high of the day and cover profitably near the low. If you do not know how to discern this information from an IB chart, you can follow the link above the chart for an explanation to help you. If You Can Draw A Straight Line . . . Here is the chart of a scribble student with levels marked off prior to the session start, showing that the scribble student again was able to sell short near the high of the day and again cover profitably based on reading price action alone near the low of the swing. Note the actual p/l at the bottom of the chart. Finally, here is a record of profits withdrawn by a scribble student during his second month of live scribble trading. Again, this is not new. All of these charts, p/ls, along with trading plans, and many other examples were posted in the original scribbles SLA thread. I humbly submit that the scribblers made an honest and sincere effort very early on to show that this method could, was, and is being traded under real time market conditions in a consistently profitable manner. However, I also stand by my current opinion that more than enough substantiating information is available to those genuinely interested in the scribble method right here in the ET archives. If you are truly interested in learning, vetting, testing, and possibly trading this method, then do as reasonable people do: Do your own due diligence. It makes no sense to continue to demand fresh proof of viability when plenty has already been made available to you if you were only to look for it. EDIT: DbPhoenix's post in another thread prompts me to add that of course any and all evidence could be faked. What should really matter to you is whether or not there is a trading plan in place before hand against which to check the purported "results." I would invite you to go to the original SLA thread, and check any of the results I posted against the charts and my stated plan which were posted ahead of time. I would also suggest you use the same criteria elsewhere on ET and other forums as well. If someone claims to be making $Gazillions, what matters is not his results, but the plan by which he achieved them. And if the plan is not shared, then the results are suspect at best, imo.
B1S2 - Why don't you post a chart of your understanding of where the trades would have been from yesterdays session using the scribbles method to trade the NQ?
True. Just don't tell the seagull's / trolls on ET. He might improve their trading results..... Besides it's much safer having 50pt stops is it not?
This is the near-term chart I posted yesterday morning. Almost five hours before the open. If the "trader" doesn't know what a range is, the range is provided for him. If the "trader" doesn't now what a breakout is, then he should find out. If the "trader" knows what a breakout is but is too afraid to take it, then he should stop trading until he has addressed his problems with fear. If the "trader" knows what a breakout is and is not too afraid to take it but has no idea how to determine when his trade becomes invalid and where to exit that trade, then he needs to study the SLA/AMT.